Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing Finance

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has now received in relation to the implementation of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have now refused to operate the provisions of the new Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have now refused to implement the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act; and what action he will take.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have taken decisions not to implement the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1972; what is the total number of council houses involved by such decisions; what percentage it represents of all local authority houses in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Five local authorities formally notified me that they did not intend to implement the Act; they own 156,392 houses, 19·7 per cent. of all local authority houses in Scotland. I directed these and 18 other authorities to furnish me with information about the discharge of certain housing functions; and in the light of replies I have in the

first instance appointed reporters to hold public local inquiries as to whether Glasgow Corporation, Lanark County Council and Falkirk and Kirkcaldy Town Councils have failed effectively to discharge certain of their functions under Parts II and IV of the Act.
In addition, a number of local authorities have written about details of the administration of the Act, and I have received a large number of letters from ratepayers complaining that local authorities which are not yet operating the Act are adding unnecessarily to the rates.

Mr. Eadie: Is there not a danger of the right hon. Gentleman being made to look very foolish if the TUC persuades the Prime Minister at the meeting at Chequers that the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act should be withdrawn because it is inflationary? Will he not curb this sort of impetuosity, if it is the belief of the Government that dealing with inflation should have priority in their policies?

Mr. Campbell: I accept that the importance of beating inflation cannot be over-emphasised. I am not being impetuous. I am following out the basic procedures which are laid down in the Local Government Act, 1947.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State has ratted on his contractual obligations with local authorities concerning subsidies and that this Act is compelling local housing authorities to act as his stooges? Would it not be more honest of him now to take over completely the financing, the building and the renting of all publicly-owned houses in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: The answer to all parts of that question is "No".

Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action he has so far taken will be welcomed by the local authorities in Scotland which are observing the terms of the Act? Can he assure us and them that he will use all the powers open to him to stop this defiance of the law?

Mr. Campbell: I agree that those authorities which are carrying out the Act have every reason to expect me to follow the basic procedures which I am


following as regards others, and this is something which will help Scottish ratepayers as a whole.

Mr. Brown: How is it possible for the Prime Minister to seek to get agreement with the TUC when the rate increases that the right hon. Gentleman is imposing are at least 50 per cent. for those who will not be eligible for rent rebates? Surely he should seek some kind of spirit of co-operation rather than go for confrontation.

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. The increases are controlled under the Act. Secondly, the Act introduces rent rebates and allowances in the private sector for the first time and these will help the lowest paid, which is very much part of what the tripartite talks are now about.

Mr. Galbraith: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a scandalous state of affairs when certain local authorities take the law into their own hands and decide which laws to obey and which laws not to obey?

Mr. Campbell: I think it would be better if I did not comment at this stage because the procedures which are laid down in the Act are being followed. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench themselves have advocated that the law should be carried out.

Mr. Ross: This is, however, a very serious situation, although it is not one that is unexpected in view of the underestimation of the attitude of Scottish local authorities. They do not want to become puppets. It is as simple as that.
May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? Could he use his powers under the Act to forgo the retrospective elements of the rent increases—that is, those which take effect virtually prior to 1st October—and, as a gesture on his side to the talks which will be going on at Chequers, would he be prepared to consider the moderation of rent increases for the next two years to 5 per cent?

Mr. Campbell: I could not give an answer to that point. I am naturally prepared to consider anything within the law that has been passed by this House. What I would point out again is that the

vast majority of local authorities in Scotland are carrying out the Act and do not regard themselves as puppets.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total sum to be paid to Scottish local authorities in housing subsidies in the current financial year; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous three years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): About £48 million. The comparable figure for 1971–72 was £39 million, for 1970–71 £34 million, and for 1969–70 £26 million.

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend make sure that all the local authorities which are refusing to implement the Act are informed officially of those figures, which entirely dispose of the propaganda that the new Act is cutting subsidies?

Mr. Younger: I entirely agree. I am certain that they will all read carefully in HANSARD the answer which I have given and draw from it the lesson that those authorities which are, apparently, refusing to implement the Act at this time are in most cases denying themselves and their tenants considerable extra financial benefits.

Mr. Lawson: Will not the Minister be honest and say that local authorities are no longer housing authorities, but, at best, are housing agents, and are being stripped of millions of pounds per annum in Exchequer subsidies which it was long since established should be paid? Will he take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and say honestly and openly, "Since the Act gives us power to take over housing—building, finance and the rest—we shall take it over and carry out our part of the Act"?

Mr. Younger: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Local housing authorities in Scotland do not, in the vast majority of cases, regard themselves as puppets, either before or after the passing of the Act. As for their being stripped of money, if anyone will offer to strip me of £1,000 and give me £1,500 in return, I shall be very pleased to accept.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not remarkable hypocrisy for the TUC and hon. Members on the Opposition side to say that they are in favour of giving maximum assistance to the lower paid while at the same time encouraging local authorities to resist an Act which is designed to help precisely those people?

Mr. Younger: I agree, and I find it quite amazing. Not only does the Act concentrate help mose carefully upon the lower paid and those who most need it, but it concentrates it on those authorities which have the greatest problems and, therefore, the greatest need of help.

Mr. Ross: Reverting to the original Question and the hon. Gentleman's answer, will he give us the number of houses in respect of which the subsidies accrued in each of the four years concerned?

Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall give him all the information I possibly can.

Mr. Buchan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now convene a meeting with the local authority associations to discuss the operation of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1972.

Mr. Younger: Discussions with local authorities are held as necessary, but my right hon. Friend has no plans for convening a meeting with the local authority associations.

Mr. Buchan: Is not the Secretary of State getting himself into a ridiculous situation in which he is issuing threats to certain councils which are the only councils in line with Government policies in that they are refusing to implement the Housing Act in view of the price norm? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman convene a meeting of those which have implemented the Act and are imposing increases of between five and 10 times the 5 per cent. norm? Is there not a danger that if the Secretary of State proceeds to take to court the non-implementers of the Act, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may be called as a witness for the defence?

Mr. Younger: That is the sort of question which I shall require to study for

some weeks before being able to pick out the tortuous logic running through it. The simple fact is that the whole tenor of the Housing Act is to concentrate more help on those with lower incomes. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his constituency, would be especially concerned to see that those who have lower incomes receive more help under this Act. Some are having very small increases in rent, some are having none and some are actually having reductions in their rents. I am sure he will support that.

Mr. Sproat: If my hon. Friend has such a meeting as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) suggests, will he bear in mind that there are literally thousands of people in Scotland who are paying more rent each week than they need simply because some local authorities are not implementing the Act?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is quite right. I have in mind especially large families in Glasgow with small incomes who at the moment in many cases are paying higher rents than they should be simply because the corporation has refused to implement the Act.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Act statute bars any attempt to keep down rents to a 5 per cent. figure, disallowing even those who receive rent rebates? Is he aware that if the Government adopted a policy of restraint in rents to fit in with the prices and incomes policy they would require new legislation? Will he say whether this is possible, and does he realise that we on this side would support that?

Mr. Younger: The Act lays down in detail what the statutory position is. What is more, the Act very much restricts increases for those on lower incomes, and it reduces the rents of those with the lowest incomes and the greatest needs.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total estimated cost of publicity on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1972, under the headings of Press, television and other publicity material.

Mr. Younger: For the year 1972–73 it is £89,550, including £20,400 for Press


advertising, £50,000 for television advertising and £19,150 for booklets and posters.

Mr. Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman have a look at the tenants' guide—not now, but later—and particularly at page 2, paragraph 2, which seems to be ambiguous if not actually misleading? Would he encourage local authorities to interpret in their own way how they see the Act affecting their tenants, and granting the authorities the same kind of literary licence?

Mr. Younger: I have studied that booklet and found it excellent and informative, but of course I will again particularly study that passage so that I can express my own opinion on it in detail. The general objective of that and other booklets, which have been widely welcomed by those who have received them, was to inform the public of their rights under the new Housing Finance Act. That is an undertaking that I should have thought would have the wholehearted support of both sides of the House.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his assessment of the effect of oil finds in the Brent field on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It was two months ago that the licensees concerned announced that they had enough information from two wells to conclude that a major new field had been discovered, to be called Brent. The group has not yet stated how it intends to develop and move the oil from the Brent field. This and other important discoveries, of which I expect more in the future as exploration spreads to new areas, will be the subject of continuing evaluation by the Government.

Mr. Douglas: Do we not need a complete reassessment of the potentialities of North Sea finds, which should reach at least 100 million tons by 1980? The minimum cost of developing the Brent field may be £400 million. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to impress upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the need to insert in future licences a strict

clause giving the Scottish industry the same type of treatment as the Norwegian industry receives?

Mr. Campbell: What is needed is a continuing process of evaluation. Even the figures which the hon. Gentleman has just given may be proved completely wrong as new discoveries are found. We have made clear already that in each round of licensing the criteria governing licences should include the contribution to the British economy made by an applicant, including the growth of industry and employment, that the Governent will watch carefully to see that the companies give full and fair opportunities to British industry and that they will have regard to this when any future applications for discretionary licences are being considered.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the pace of his performance so far, but is he aware that there is concern lest the provision of services lags behind the needs of development? Can he assure us that the houses, roads, schools, hospitals and so forth will be provided on time?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This concerns the Government greatly, and the Scottish Office is responsible for a large part of the infrastructure. We have been working out plans to this end, and our plans have to be adjustable so as to take account of new discoveries and new announcements about the development of these oil fields.

Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State has said that the Government take into account the contribution of companies to British industry. Is he aware that there is great dissatisfaction because Scottish industry has not received sufficient consideration in relation to licences already awarded? What changes will he make in the way licences are allocated in the future to avoid this discontent?

Mr. Campbell: I made a statement earlier about our policy regarding licences, and I repeated it a minute ago. Licencees are obliged under their licences to inform the Government immediately of the facts which they discover. I am pleased that some Scottish firms have reacted extremely quickly and


have made special efforts, including visits overseas, to get business. I should like more to do so.

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's development policy in relation to North Sea oil.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Government's policy is to promote the rapid and thorough exploration and development of the oil discoveries in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf for the benefit of the United Kingdom economy including Scotland. The Scottish Office is concerned to ensure that the action necessary to achieve this is undertaken in good time and in an orderly and acceptable way for the benefit of Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that soon upwards of 100 oil rig supply vessels will be required for the servicing of production rigs? Is he aware that the United States Government is giving at least a 16½ per cent. subsidy to vessels built in the United States and that the Scottish shipyards especially are finding it difficult because of that subsidy to get such orders? Will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent action at least to match that subsidy to make sure that the Scottish yards get a high proportion of this work, which is badly needed?

Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a subsidy for shipbuilding is not my responsibility, but no doubt his comments will be noted. What he has said underlines the rapidity with which we have acted in order to get oil rig servicing, harbour facilities and so on at Peterhead and Montrose and at other places from Shetland to the Border.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his oil development policy so far. Does he not agree that there is a need to think and plan now about and for the industry that is to follow the exploration and production phase of the oil industry in order to ensure that the much feared dangers of dereliction do not materialise?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is touching on an issue which we regard as important, the prevention of possible pollution or dereliction. I am glad to

say that those industries that have so far set up have been pollution free and are such as to have caused very little trouble. I have noticed that following the policy discussion document published by the Opposition—"Labour's Programme for Britain"—the Labour Party conference passed a resolution advocating public ownership and control of the oil industry. which does not hold out much hope for the industries that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that it is necessary and desirable that the Highlands and Islands should gain development benefit from oil. Has he seen the page advertisement in The Times today about areas for expansion, omitting both the Highlands and the North-East of Scotland? Will he consult the Department of Trade and Industry about that?

Mr. Campbell: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Both his constituency and mine appear to have been missed out.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say when the report of the study being conducted for the Government by the International Management and Engineering Group of Britain will be completed and published? In view of the importance of this subject and the interest in it, would it not be a good idea if next Session it were to be the subject of special discussion and study by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Campbell: The recommendations to be made by the group making the study will become available soon. The right hon. Gentleman's second question is not a matter for me, but it could be considered with other possible subjects for a Select Committee.

Highlands and Islands Development Board

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his consideration of the proposals of the Highlands and Islands Development Board regarding the complement of its staff.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: There are no such proposals outstanding.

Mr. Maclennan: When the Under-Secretary of State wrote to me on this subject before the Summer Recess, he indicated that there were such proposals outstanding which the Government were considering. Those proposals related to the number of people employed in the transport division, which amounted at that time to a total of two and a half persons. In view of the critical importance of transport to the Highlands and of the board's role in advising the Government on transport policy—passenger and freight, by air, rail and road—does not the Secretary of State consider that that number is too small, and will he advise the board to increase its complement in order to enable it adequately to continue to fulfil this important role?

Mr. Campbell: The request for an additional transport post referred to, which was made in July, has been dealt with, and there are now no further proposals on this from the board. However, I am always ready to consider any proposals which it may wish to put to me.

Guard Dogs

Mr. Ronald King Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now institute an inquiry into the use of guard dogs to protect private property with a view to introducing legislation to control their use and to protect the public from unnecessary injury.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): This matter was very fully considered last year when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the then Home Secretary concluded that special measures of control would not be justified. This has been examined again following the distressing case in the hon. and learned Member's constituency, but my right hon. Friends still do not believe legislation would be justified.

Mr. Murray: I must express dissatisfaction at that reply. Ministers are aware that a six-year-old Leith boy had to have over 60 stitches for injuries done to him by untended guard dogs in a timber yard. The dogs were destroyed for doing what

they were trained to do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in general, guard dogs should not be left untended on premises, and, if he does so agree, will he take the next logical step and accept that statutory safeguards ought to be introduced? If he considers that they should not be introduced yet, will he at least accept that there is urgent need for an inquiry into this matter so that the public may be safeguarded and, indeed, justice be done to dogs, which are often very helpful to people?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern on this matter. As I said in my original answer, we went into it very fully, and the action we took was taken only after consulting the police and other interested organisations. One should put the problem in perspective. In 1970, out of 1,856 incidents involving dogs, only 69 concerned guard dogs, and in 1971 the figure was 53.

Mr. Murray: Still far too many.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One must keep the matter in perspective.

Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that he bears some responsibility here, since the matter was raised on the Floor last year by some of my hon. Friends and myself? Will he concede that the figures he gave cannot be regarded as acceptable since, if his Government's confidence is justified and there is more industrial activity in Scotland, we shall in consequence have more guard dogs? Will he accept the case for an immediate investigation into how guard dogs should be used, since, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, they certainly should not be allowed to wander around buildings and premises without any control whatever?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We had an inquiry into the matter and examined it very closely a year ago. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, as was very clear to the House then, the firms associated with the British Security Industries Association have taken certain action on it. There is another line of action which follows certain suggestions made by the hon. and learned Gentleman a year ago, which are being looked into by the Scottish Law Commission in relation to


the law of obligation. I hope to be able to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Crime

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish crime statistics, in view of the increase in serious crimes in Scotland and particularly in Dundee.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend and I share the concern about the increase in crime and we shall continue policies to combat it.

Mr. Doig: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that those are the worst figures ever recorded, that they are causing a great deal of public alarm and that the Government appear to be doing nothing to alleviate the problem other than paying lip service to it by saying they are concerned? Will the hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate so that if the Government have no ideas they can hear from other people who have ideas on what to do about the problem?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Sadly, the figures have been rising over the years, and every year that they rise the figure can be said to be a record. The question of a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As to action, the hon. Gentleman should take account of the support we have given to the police with the increase in police strength that there has been over the past two years, and should give as much support as possible to the work of the police in their active combat of crime.

Mr. Sproat: Is my hon. Friend aware of a great and growing feeling in Scotland that at least part of the cause of the frightening rise in crime is the absurdly light sentences passed in our courts? In particular, is he aware that violent assaults on the police now commonly result in a fine of less than £20?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of concern in Scotland, concern which I share. But penalties are a matter for the courts. There has been a tendency to higher penalties in recent years. I remind my hon. Friend that there is no limit to

the period of imprisonment which can be imposed by the High Court.

Mr. Buchan: We are all very pleased that the Tory Party is learning the facts of life. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the hysterical campaign that was conducted by himself, his right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), not forgetting the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor)? What hysterical representations have they made to him about the recent figures? We on this side will continue to treat the problems seriously and not in the kind of cheap, vulgar, squalid, political way that the Tory Party have done.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I always treated the matter seriously, to the extent of taking action in a way that the hon. Gentleman never did when he was in power. He should recognise that the problem is being considered by the Thomson Committee on Penal Procedure. The most important thing we can do to combat crime is to give the police our support. When we came to power in 1970, police establishments were frozen. The net increase in police strength over the past year was greater than in the previous five years put together. That is a measure of the action we have taken.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman get his facts right? Police establishments were not frozen in Scotland. In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, is it not a singularly inopportune time to get into difficulties with the police over their present pay claim?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the right lion. Gentleman had been in the House on another occasion, he would know that there were questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the pay claim. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said last week. It is a fact that no review of establishments was taking place when we came to power. Since then, the majority of police establishments in Scotland have been reviewed, and many police forces in Scotland have been able to recruit above the establishment figures they had when we came to power in 1970.

Hospitals (Private Out-Patient Facilities

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many regional hospital boards in Scotland have sought his advice in respect of the provision of private out-patient facilities in hospitals within their area; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): Three regional hospital boards have asked for and received authority to treat private out-patients, but only four hospitals in all are involved and these only in respect of certain, specified facilities.

Mr. Hunter: I appreciate that the number of hospitals with private out-patient facilities is minimal in Scotland, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that extension of those facilities would further worsen the position of the ordinary National Health Service patient? On occasion such patients have to wait several hours on any day to receive the treatment they require. Will the hon. Gentleman thoroughly investigate any application by any hospital to extend those services?

Mr. Monro: I assure the hon. Gentleman that when an application has been made—and only four have been made since 1968—it is investigated very carefully. I also assure him that no hardship to any other out-patient is caused. That matter is taken very carefully into consideration.

Mr. Galbraith: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he does not think there is anything wrong in private outpatient facilities? Why should out-patients who wish to pay extra not be catered for?

Mr. John Smith: Jumping the queue.

Mr. Monro: I share the view of my hon. Friend and remind the House that the Expenditure Committee recently concluded that private practice operates to the overall benefit of the Health Service.

Mr. Carmichael: This is a very serious point. Surely the Minister cannot maintain that there is no queue jumping. Everyone is aware that there is. Will he give us an indication of the cost to the National Health Service of such special

facilities? Are they paid for out of the fees paid to the consultants who allow people to jump the queue?

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman must keep the matter in proportion. I said that only four hospitals had made such applications, and three of the approvals were given by the last Labour Government. Therefore I think the hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Secondary Teachers

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the shortage of secondary teachers up to the most recent convenient date.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current shortage of secondary teachers; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous three years.

Mr. Monro: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the numbers of pupils and teachers for the years requested and the pupil-teacher ratios. Whilst there are shortages of teachers in certain subjects, particularly mathematics and physics, these are diminishing and there has been a marked improvement over the past four years in staffing overall. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish proposals for staffing standards in the next two or three months.

Mr. Dempsey: Has the hon. Gentleman been informed that at 1st September there was a shortage of 175 secondary teachers in Lanarkshire—teachers of mathematics, the sciences, technology, English, art, modern languages and so on? Is he aware that school pupils are studying at evening classes as well as through the day in order to obtain passes in certificate subjects? What concrete proposals has he to end this most unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend and I have never hidden the fact that in special areas, such as Lanarkshire there is a shortage of teachers. The general improvement in the situation will certainly help those areas. The special recruitment scheme is still in force.

Mr. Taylor: While the general improvement is greatly welcomed, can


my hon. Friend say whether it has been possible to eliminate part-time education in secondary schools in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: I hope that we shall eliminate it as soon as possible. If my hon. Friend has particular cases in mind, I hope that he will let me know of them.

Mr. John Smith: Although the hon. Gentleman says that there may be a general improvement in Scotland, there is continuing difficulty in certain areas such as Lanarkshire. Will he undertake to consider increasing the number of designated places in schools to try to deal with the problem in such areas?

Mr. Monro: I am always prepared to consider any constructive proposal, and that is what I will do.

Following are the figures:


EDUCATION AUTHORITY SECONDARY SCHOOLS





Pupil


Session
Pupils
Teachers
teacher ratio



000s
000s



1968–69
294·3
17·9
16·5:1


1969–70
304·0
18·5
16·4:1


1970–71
314·4
19·5
16·1:1


1971–72
324·3
20·7
15·7:1

Stirling University (Visit by the Queen)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as a result of the inquiry into events at Stirling University, he has been able to establish how many students from other universities than Stirling were present in the university buildings during the disturbances and to what extent they were responsible for the disorder which occurred; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is not at present clear what part, if any, was played by students from other universities. The university authorities and the police are however still pursuing their inquiries into this most unfortunate episode.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does not that answer imply that unless strict and just disciplinary action is taken against the students responsible for this behaviour, the university will acquire a reputation from which it will never recover?

Mr. Campbell: It is for the university authorities to consider whether any of their students should be dealt with under their code of discipline. I am sure that the whole House deplores this incident.

Mr. Douglas: I agree with the Secretary of State that the whole House will deplore this incident. It was unpardonable behaviour towards a guest. However, do not we have to be extremely careful not to prejudice the careers of a great many students in the university who are anxious to get on with their studies and not to impute bad relations between them and members of the staff of the university who are also anxious to preserve academic freedom and progress?

Mr. Campbell: I am sure that the university authorities will bear this in mind. My information is that it was a minority who caused the trouble.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to public funds of security arrangements for Her Majesty's recent visit to Stirling University.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I understand that the additional costs incurred by the Stirling and Clackmannan Constabulary were about £600.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, but would he not agree that if the mass of our constituents are to be reassured that the contribution they are required to make through rates and taxes to pay for the enjoyment by students of the privilege of university education is justified, they will need to be assured that those who were directly implicated in that disgraceful affair are no longer a charge on the education budget, otherwise there is surely a real danger that the vast majority of hard-working students will suffer for the misdemeanours of a very small minority?

Mr. Campbell: I certainly agree that the vast majority should not be allowed to suffer because of the bad behaviour of a small minority, and I dealt with this in a previous answer. I would like to take this opportunity of saying that I consider that the chief constable and the police are to be commended for the extremely good way in which they dealt with this delicate situation.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State really agreeing with the rest of what his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said?

Mr. Campbell: No. I noted what my hon. Friend said. His main point was whether the majority should be allowed to suffer because of the minority, and, as I said in reply to an earlier Question, discipline is a matter for the university authorities, who are considering this. I could not myself withdraw the grants to students without a recommendation from the university authorities.

Economic Prospects (Ministerial Broadcast)

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an early ministerial broadcast on the prospects for the Scottish economy in the coming 12 months.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have taken part in broadcasts regularly since coming into office—nine since the beginning of this year—and my intention is that this should continue at appropriate times.

Mr. Sillars: I take it that that is a "No" to my request for a ministerial broadcast, which is of a special character. Am I right in assuming that the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's reticence is that he is apprehensive about having to admit to the people that even the new range of Government regional policies is inadequate to the task of substantially reducing Scottish unemployment, especially in view of this morning's article in the Glasgow Herald which indicates clearly that the right hon. Gentleman has already lost the battle for steel in the Cabinet and 18,000 Scottish jobs with it?

Mr. Campbell: I consider the publication of the Scottish Economic Bulletin to be the most suitable way of describing economic trends and commenting upon them. On the subject of unemployment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the figures announced last week. As for the report in one of the Scottish papers today, that is pure speculation. The hon. Gentleman will know, as the House knows, that over recent months there has been a great deal of speculation in both directions and, therefore, contradictory.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has every reason to be proud that the regional aids available to Scottish industry for machinery and buildings are greater than ever before in the history of Scotland? Will he confirm our confidence in him by assuring us that before any decision is made on the plans presented to the Government by the British Steel Corporation he will be fully consulted?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I might add that this combination of regional measures is specially tailored to the problems facing us in Scotland today. As for decisions on steel, the Government have stated that regional development considerations will be taken into account and, of course, I shall be consulted.

Mr. Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman still prepared to stake his political reputation and future on the construction of a green field integrated steel mill at Hunterston, thereby guaranteeing the jobs of 26,000 Scottish steel workers?

Mr. Campbell: As it was the hon. Gentleman who invented the idea that my political reputation was so involved—

Mr. Lambie: It was the Daily Express.

Mr. Campbell: I agree that I was perhaps the first person in this House, even before the hon. Gentleman was a Member, who started a Supply Day debate and chose the subject of the deep water and other assets of the Clyde and, therefore, I am perhaps associated with using those assets to the best advantage of Scotland. But I do not think I am involved, as the hon. Member suggests, in the specific project he has in mind.

Mr. Ross: I agree that it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) who invented the right hon. Gentleman's political reputation. We did not realise that he had one. It is to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman will not be complacent about the present position. If the pessimistic forecasts in today's Glasgow Herald about the future of steel prove to be true, will the right hon. Gentleman make a ministerial broadcast explaining the position to the people of Scotland? Secondly, will he pay tribute to the one factor which has reduced unemployment


in Scotland, which was the raising of the school leaving age and the return of students to universities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they account for about 50 per cent. of the last drop in unemployment?

Mr. Campbell: To deal with the right hon. Gentleman's first point, he knows that there has been continuing speculation in the Scottish Press and that the speculation has contradicted itself over recent months. Today we have yet another newspaper speculating. In due course the Government will be taking and announcing decisions on the recommendations by the BSC. As regards the raising of the school leaving age, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was his own Government, when he was Secretary of State, which postponed the raising of the school leaving age because of the economic crisis at the time.

Alcoholism

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the growing incidence of alcoholism in Scotland.

Mr. Monro: The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of alcoholism has increased in recent years. The Government continue to take every possible step to make the dangers known through the campaigns conducted by the Scottish Health Education Unit which, over the the last four years, have been increasing in scope and in the current calendar year are estimated to cost £15,000. A grant of £1,000 is also made to the National Council on Alcoholism to support the work of its industrial organiser. I am also in touch with the Chairman of the local Councils on Alcoholism in Edinburg, Glasgow and Dundee which have recently combined to form a Scottish Council on Alcoholism which, it is hoped, will be representative of all the interests in this field. The council has been given a grant of £6,000 for the current year.
In addition to these efforts the Government have supported two research projects, at a total cost of £52,000, into factors underlying the development of alcoholism.

Mr. Eadie: But will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a disease

which is spoiling the whole of Scottish family life? Did he see the figures published during the week which said that one family in 10 has a drink problem, that one in 50 Scots are alcoholics, and one in five of the alcoholics in Scotland is a woman and that alcoholism is the third highest cause of death in the country?

Mr. John Smith: This Government are.

Mr. Eadie: In dealing with the cause of this curse of the whole of Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman consider, because of the seriousness and urgency of the problem, setting up a high-powered committee to investigate and to report to him and to this House the outcome?

Mr. Monro: I certainly share the hon. Member's deep concern about this problem. A number of investigations have been made, particularly by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, and of course I await information from the research projects. If we still lack knowledge of this at the end of these inquiries, I shall consider whether it is necessary to set up a further inquiry. I would like to thank the voluntary organisations which are putting so much effort into this and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have attended conferences and indicated the concern of Parliament about this problem.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an appalling connection between drink and crime, particularly in Scotland as opposed to the rest of Great Britain? Is he aware of the recent extraordinary estimate by the police that between 50 and 75 per cent. of all crimes committed in Scotland have drink as a causal element in them?

Mr. Monro: I could not express an opinion on this, but what my hon. Friend has said will be looked at very carefully by my Department.

Mr. Small: In making his study of the effects of alcohol in relation to crime, will the hon. Gentleman consider how great is the effect of social drinking, and stress drinking which has driven people to pilfer?

Mr. Monro: It is extremely difficult to get accurate statistics of this problem. I do not think anything which


has been produced by the Health Education Unit would cover the point made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Ross: How much help has the Health Education Unit had from the brewers and distillers of Scotland? Have they provided any finance towards the research?

Mr. Monro: The companies to which the right hon. Member refers have made subscriptions to help with this problem.

Education (Handicapped Children)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional provision for the education of handicapped children is now being made by those local education authorities which had been sending children to Corsbie Hall School in Fife.

Mr. Monro: The education authorities which sent pupils to the school have made no new plans for additional provision since it closed though Dundee, Edinburgh and Renfrew were already planning new day provision for maladjusted pupils. Glasgow and Dumfries, whose social work departments sent pupils to the school, were also planning day and residential provision, respectively, before the school closed.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that it is still the case that there is more private fee-paying provision for this kind of child in Scotland than there is public provision and that this is highly unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that the whole case of Corsbie Hall is now in the hands of the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is looking into the various aspects of it, and that criminal charges may well be preferred against the proprietor, Mr. Taylor-Bryant, and will he take further steps to ensure that this man is brought to heel and that this kind of exercise is not engaged in any more in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Monro: In relation to the first part of the supplementary question, besides those authorities I have mentioned Aberdeenshire and Fife also intend to provide residential schools. In relation to the second part, I shall leave that to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Electricity Policy

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on electricity policy for Scotland.

Mr. Younger: The Scottish electricity board's proposals for meeting Scotland's future needs were set out in their brochure "Plans for the Future 1971–78", copies of which were placed in the Vote Office in January, and since then the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has decided to proceed with an oil/gasfired power station near Peterhead.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister take this opportunity to dispel the rumour that there is to be an amalgamation of the two boards? Secondly, will he tell us when he proposes to make a statement on energy policy for Scotland, particularly on the future of the Scottish coal-mining industry?

Mr. Younger: The second part of the supplementary question should correctly be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who deals with fuel policy generally. As for the first part of the question, I have no plans for amalgamation of the two boards. I am sure that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board will continue the close co-operation which can best secure the interests of consumers in all parts of Scotland.

Sir J. Gilmour: As my right hon. Friend has control over the use of coal or gas in electricity generation, would it not be right now to withdraw the surcharge on oil?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but that again is a matter which would have to be directed to the Ministers whose responsibility it is.

Criminal Appeal Procedure (Thomson Report)

Mr. Ronald King Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to seek early implementation of the interim report on criminal appeal procedure recently published by the Thomson Committee.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right


hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate are considering this report but are not yet in a position to make any statement about further action on it.

Mr. Murray: The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate acted with commendable urgency in requesting an interim report from the Thomson Committee on this matter, and the Thomson Committee in turn produced an early report which is clear, brief and to the point. Does not the Minister agree that it would be unfortunate if this commendable urgency were not shown by the Government in concluding this chapter of events?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the welcome he has given to this. We must remember two things. First, the report was published only at the beginning of August. Secondly, some of the recommendations are highly controversial and involve majority and minority views within the committee. It is only when one studies the report that one realises that very careful consideration is still needed before one can come to a conclusion on it.

Paraquat Poisoning

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have died from paraquat poisoning since this product has been on the commercial market.

Mr. Monro: Between 1st January, 1960, and 30th June, 1972, a total of 11 deaths were registered in Scotland as being due to paraquat poisoning. Five of the deaths were stated to be accidental and three suicidal; in the other three cases there was no evidence to show whether the deaths were accidental or intentional.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has given show that there is now an urgent need to discuss with the manufacturers of this product some method of dyeing it so that it is clearly not potable, or a method of adding some noxious substance that would have a pungent odour so that people could not bring themselves to drink it? If the manufacturers will not co-operate, will he not take action to have the substance withdrawn altogether, as I understand that there is no known antidote to it?

Mr. Monro: I have every hope that the manufacturers will co-operate. The very matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are now being actively discussed with the manufacturers. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that accidental deaths from drinking the liquid occurred because it had been decanted into soft drink bottles. That is why we ought to follow the hon. Gentleman's ideas.

Mr. Gourlay: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that, following a tragedy of this nature in my constituency, after representations that I then made to him, he undertook that the manufacturers were actively pursuing some method of trying to prevent this liquid from being taken accidentally? Has he nothing further to report on what he said six months ago?

Mr. Monro: No, except that we are continually trying to find a solution. It is no use thinking that it is easy to discover or that there is any lack of effort on the part of the manufacturers.

Football Grounds (Wheelchair Facilities)

Mr Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to make compulsory the provision of adequate facilities for disabled persons in wheelchairs at football grounds in Scotland.

Mr. Monro: The provision of facilities for disabled persons in premises open to the public is already dealt with in Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Mr. Sproat: Is my hon. Friend aware that for 18 months Aberdeen Football Club has consistently refused to provide facilities for supporters in wheelchairs and that it is now the only First Division club in Scotland so to do? Does he not agree that such a refusal is totally contrary to the spirit of the Act?

Mr. Monro: I certainly commend the many football clubs that have provided very good facilities for the disabled and I should like to see such facilities universally offered in Scotland. It is up to the clubs and they have to think about it carefully. I would much rather that this was done by persuasion. Local authorities, of course, have the right to discuss


the provisions of the Act, particularly in relation to these occurrences.

Edinburgh Opera House

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the conduct of his officials in relation to the dismissal of the arehitects of the proposed Edinburgh Opera House.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I announced last year that the Government were prepared to contribute a very large grant to the building of the Opera House in Edinburgh on the basis that the project is carried through successfully and without delay. My officials have subsequently assisted with advice to Edinburgh Corporation, whose responsibility this project is and with whom any contractual relationship with the arehitects lies. At the corporation's request they took part in discussions with Sir William Kininmonth.
I understand that while the corporation has now asked Sir William's firm to complete the feasibility study in which it has been engaged, it has terminated his commission in view of the need to appoint arehitects with greater resources to carry out the main services for this major project. I regret that this has caused disappointment to Sir William but what has happened does not imply any reflection on the professional ability of his firm. It remains the duty of the corporation and myself, however, to ensure that the project is carried out successfully and without delay.

Mr. Dalyell: What hard evidence is there that these arehitects did not have adequate resources?

Mr. Campbell: The number of professional arehitects in the firm and the fact that no firm could be expected to be wholly devoted to one project. The technical advice was what caused the corporation to take this action.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Television Licences (Rebates)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what studies he has made into the

cost of extending the rebate scheme for unused portions of television licences.

The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has carefully considered widening the scope for television licence refunds. But to do so would add too greatly to the complexity and cost of administering the licence system. He has decided therefore to maintain the policy of successive Governments of allowing refunds only when the need for a licence has not excedeed 28 days.

Mr. Huckfield: Will not the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the shameful treatment that his Department has meted out to my constituent Mrs. Storer, who recently moved into old people's accommodation, having conscientiously paid her £7 television licence, only to be told that she qualified for the 5p concessionary licence? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to tell the Post Office to stop being so petty and miserly and to give my constituent back her £6·95?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent and has concluded that in all the circumstances he would be right to continue the practice of the Labour Government in following the rules that that Government laid down.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Department giving any consideration to the general problem of old people and making further concessions regarding the licences that they took out—say, half-price licences or something of that kind?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is a matter on which he would no doubt like to put a Question to my right hon. Friend when he returns.

Mr. John D. Grant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently I have been in correspondence with his right hon. Friend and suggested that he might consider quarterly licences for pensioners as one way of getting round the problem but that I got a very dusty answer on the lines that he could not consider selectivity in this way? Why cannot the Government, who are so wedded to


selectivity in every other sphere, exercise a little selectivity on behalf of pensioners in this sphere?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that, having considered the policy of the Labour Government in detail, they probably found that on this rare occasion they were right.

BRIDGE, WOODLEY (ACCIDENT)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the construction accident that happened yesterday afternoon at Woodley, Berkshire, where the new road linking East Reading with the M4 motorway crosses a river. Three men were killed and ten injured. Of the injured, two have already been discharged from hospital, and I am glad to say that the hospital authorities state that there is no serious concern for the other eight.
I am sure that I am speaking for the whole House—and not least for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, in whose constituency this happened—in expressing my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who were killed and to those who were injured by this tragic event.
Equally I am sure the whole House would wish me to praise their workmates for the energy and courage they showed in starting immediate rescue work, and also the speed and efficiency of the emergency services.
As yet I have no information about the cause, but Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate was on the site very soon after the collapse. A Factory Inspectorate team, led by a senior civil engineering inspector, is now on the site carrying out a full investigation into all the circumstances of the accident.

Mr. Heffer: On behalf of the Opposition I should like to add our voice to that of the Minister in expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who were killed and injured in this tragic accident. We should also like to praise the prompt action of the work people and the emergency services. The reports in the Press indicate how the work people

and the supervision of the job got to work immediately to rescue those involved in the accident.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in the construction industry there is a continuing and serious problem in that 19·2 per cent. of all fatalities in industry are in construction, and that last year 196 construction workers were killed—only seven fewer than in 1970—although there were 50,000 fewer workers employed in the industry? Obviously there was a marginal increase. Is this not a serious problem which requires prompt action?
I understand that there is an increased number of similar accidents both here and abroad. The Science Research Council, a Government body, and the Construction Industry Research and Information Association have announced a £30,000 inquiry into bridge and scaffolding collapses. Whilst this is welcome, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance this afternoon that no further work will continue on this type of construction and that it will be temporarily suspended?
We welcome the fact that the Department, through the top inspectorate, is carrying out a full inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a report of that inquiry is given to the House and the country at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Macmillan: On the last of those points, I certainly will see that the House and country are informed of what is discovered on the site as quickly as possible. There will, of course, be other inquiries going on, including the coroner's inquest, unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate.
I cannot at this stage give an assurance about the cessation of work of this particular nature, because it is not certain by any means what was the cause of this accident.
I am glad that our attendance was very prompt. The local construction inspector was on the site very quickly—within an hour, or not much more than an hour after the accident—and we had our full team at work starting first thing this morning.
There are problems of technology involved. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, research into the theoretical and


practical problems arising from scaffolding is being started with the full support of the Science Research Council and other public sources as well as from the industry.
The Concrete Society and the Institution of Structural Engineers issued a report on falsework in 1971. This was the basis of a discussion between the Department of the Environment, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Concrete Society, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the National Association of Scaffolding Contractors, the British Standards Institution and the Department of Employment. It is hoped that this will form the basis of a code of practice for dealing with this particular type of temporary construction. So both the theoretical and the practical aspects are being covered.

Mr. Vaughan: I, too, should like to be associated with what my right hon. Friend said. My constituency immediately adjoins the area where this tragic accident occurred and a number of the people involved were my constituents. From the contacts I had late yesterday afternoon and evening, it appears that there was an outstandingly rapid and efficient response—a model of the way a disaster of this kind should be dealt with. We are all very grateful for what my right hon. Friend said today. As there have been a number of accidents of this particular kind recently, may I ask whether the results of the inquiry will be made public? Could we, as soon as possible, have an answer to a simple question: is this the result of human error or a fault in the design?

Mr. Macmillan: There are two aspects. One concerns bridge design, which is a matter for the Department of the Environment, and the other is the method of construction involved. In this case use was made of large-span steel girders supported by vertical structures. It was not scaffolding in the conventional sense of the term. This method was used successfully in this particular case on the span for the first carriageway. It is not possible at this stage to say what has gone wrong. I should not like to prejudge any inquiry. It would be quite wrong to do so. However, I hope to have the facts of the case as soon as possible, to

inform the House and the country thereof, and to ensure that the fullest possible investigation is made into the underlying as well as the immediate causes of the accident.

Mr. David Stoddart: I, too, should like to express my sympathy for the families of the victims of this dreadful accident and add my praise to the men on the site who acted so quickly and the emergency services which got into operation immediately.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that there have been a number of these accidents? I believe that recently there were two in Germany. Has the Department examined the reports of those accidents and, if so, what lessons have been drawn? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the inspectors to pay particular attention to the claim that was made in the television broadcast last night that one reason for the accident may be that speed of construction took precedence over safety?

Mr. Macmillan: If that were so, it would be a matter for Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate. I think there is a slight difficulty here which the hon. Gentleman posed. Naturally, the Factory Inspectorate takes account of and studies the technical reasons and causes of accidents throughout the world as part of the preparation for its work. It is impossible to relate experiences in other parts of the world to a particular accident, however similar it may be, until one has examined the causes of that accident.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Whilst appreciating that there will be the fullest searching inquiry into this tragic accident, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that, because of the nature of this accident, it is essential that there should be an interim statement as soon as possible to confirm whether the initial collapse was in the temporary shuttering, in the temporary support to the bridge, or, indeed, in part of what was going to be the permanent support to that bridge? In view of recent similar accidents in different parts of the world, the last being in Pasadena, California, only last week, if it was one of the latter two reasons, surely there should be a searching departmental inquiry into the whole principle


of structure at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is quite right, but the problem is getting through the physical debris resulting from this accident and examining all the possible failures or causes which could have brought it about. I shall, I hope, have some information fairly rapidly within the next few days, and, depending on the nature of that information, I shall be able to judge what course of action should properly be taken.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that, in answer to questions by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), my hon. Friend

the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and myself, the Leader of the House indicated that he agreed that there was an important point of significance and principle perhaps involved in the question of the Docksey Report being made available to certain hon. Members and not to others. Therefore, may I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he would care to give an oral answer to Question No. 39?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order. I have had no such request.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say that I am not yet in a position to give the results of my consideration, which I promised only, I think, during business questions last Thursday, but I will do so at the earliest possible moment.

THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN (EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT)

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further and better provision for the education and employment of thalidomide children.
There has been a long period of neglect in respect of thalidomide children. Some of them are now 10 years of age. Many people have made valiant efforts on their behalf, but a lot more needs to be done now about their education and employment prospects. It is true that the "Alf Morris" Act, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, allows local authorities to give massive support in the home, but the performance in this respect is rather uneven. The Lady Hoare Trust has given invaluable support to the parents and to the children, but it is, after all, a charity with limited resources, and these people need a lot more help than they are getting. The Society for the Aid of Thalidomide Children is concerned with the parents of these children and with pooling resources and sharing knowledge. But that does not tackle the basic problem.
A considerable body of knowledge exists about means whereby we can educate these children. We can plan ahead for them. We can think in terms of training them. We can probably make them useful citizens. There are three ways in which they can earn their living. The first is in open employment. I am pleased to say that there are distinct possibilities that, despite their grotesque injuries, some of them will earn a living in open employment. Some of them will have to earn their living in sheltered employment. I fear that some will have to live at home and will need environmental control. A large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked whether they can support the Bill. What I am trying to do is to test the atmosphere and temperature of the House.
There is evidence from the Fleming Fulton School in Belfast and from the Hephaistos School in Reading that by using advanced technology, in which we

lead the world, we can enable these children to communicate and to be educated and eventually to take their place in society. They may look grotesque, but there is the distinct possibility of their making a useful contribution. But we must make the effort now. We must not delay any longer.
I notice that hon. Members who are in the legal profession are present. It would be nice if we could modify the law in such a way that interim settlements could be made in cases like this so that sums of money could be made available for the parents to enable them to to start tackling the problem. The final solution could come later. I do not wish to interfere in a legal matter, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that the Distillers Company has a moral responsibility. If the company were to say that it accepted this moral responsibility, there would be no need for me to obtain permission to introduce the Bill. Another method by which the problem could be resolved would be for the Ministry to say "We will accept full and total responsibility for these children and the difficulties faced by their parents."
It was Hazlitt who said that man is the only animal who laughs and cries because he is the only animal who can see the difference between things as they are and things as they should be. If we were to apply all our known technology to solving this problem—and it would be expensive—there could be a remarkable improvement in the situation of these children.
I should like to pay tribute to a few of the hospitals which have worked very hard on this problem. The Chailey Heritage, Mary Marlborough Lodge, the Princess Margaret Rose Hospital in Edinburgh, the Ormond Street Hospital for Children, Alder Hey in the North-West and the Queen Mary Hospital have all made remarkable efforts on behalf of these children, but a lot more needs to be done. Hon. Members may well say "When will you get the Bill?" I should hope that I would get it tomorrow. As far as I can make out, there has not been a better example of making use of the Ten-minute Rule Bill procedure than this and we have the opportunity now to find out what the House feels about this matter.
A film which I saw on television—and it was done for the best of motives—of a mother having to wind her child up the staircase was near obscene, not in the eyes of the producer, but because he was able to make such a film when if use was made of existing known technology that child could have been taken up the stairs simply by pressing a button. The burden placed on the parents of these children is incredibly hard. Large numbers of State schools are doing their best, but I find it incredible that the Lady Hoare Trust should be almost out of funds and the Distillers Company has still not made a contribution. That is disgraceful.
If the problem were tackled with a sense of dynamic purpose, if the Ministry or some other organisation were to spend money so that these children might have access to and from their homes and to and from places where they can be educated, if a massive effort was made to make sure that these children had mobility, that would be something. Above all, they need money, but we can immediately provide them with environmental control. We can give them Possum equipment. We can provide them with advanced forms of typewriters. If we realise the urgency of the situation and what can be done here and now, we can make these children's lives much more promising. We can help them to earn a living. We can give them independence, We can do something for their parents who have suffered for far too long without sufficient support.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Carter-Jones, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Pavitt, Mr. Astor, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Alfred Morris, Dr. Stuttaford, Mr. Winterton, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Pendry and Mr. Marten.

THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN (EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT)

Bill to make further and better provisions for the education and employment of thalidomide children, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Schedule 14

AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS, ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 259, in page 276, line 26, leave out from "a" to "and" in line 28 and insert:
county by the county council and in Greater London by the Greater London Council, except that the powers conferred by section 76(1)(c), so far as they relate to the provision of plant or apparatus for sorting and baling waste paper collected separately from other refuse, shall be exercisable concurrently by the local authority and the county council or the Greater London Council, as the case may be.

3.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 270.

Mr. Speed: It might be for the convenience of the House for me to tell hon. Members that there are copies of notes available in the Vote Office on the conservation and the commencement Clause. It might be helpful for hon. Members to look at them.
Last July we had a long, interesting and good debate on these subjects. At that time the House came to the decision that refuse disposal should be a matter for the non-metropolitan districts as opposed to the counties which I and my right hon. Friends were advocating. We and the other place have looked carefully at the decision taken on that evening, but we have not been dissuaded by the arguments put forward and that is why we are agreeing with another place today to reverse that decision.
With the increasing emphasis on environmental standards, which both sides of the House and the whole country welcome, there is need to pay more attention to wider planning issues and the


changing character of the problem of the refuse to be disposed. It is clear to us all that a number of disadvantages in the present system have appeared. No one up to now has been in a position to take a comprehensive view of all the disposal problems in a particular area or to plan an overall strategy for disposing of the wastes arising in that area in the most satisfactory way.
Partly as a result of that, and partly because some operators have in the past been concerned to find the cheapest and easiest method to get rid of waste, and have certainly not taken into account environmental considerations, some tips, incinerators and other disposal plants have not been well sited. This has made the disposal of waste offensive to the public and has damaged the amenity. Most hon. Members know that this is so from their own constituency cases.
It is our firm belief that without a comprehensive system of control and disposal there is a growing danger of pollution, particularly of water supplies, by abandoned wastes. This is made more acute by the growing volume of industrial waste in towns and cities. Without any wider controlling and co-ordinating body taking account of the whole volume of waste arising in an area, full advantage has not been taken of modern technologies, particularly for the recovery and re-use of waste and opportunities for the co-ordination of waste disposal facilities, particularly in planning land reclamation schemes.
It is against this background that my Department has faced that the Government's policy has had to be developed. The first step was to get a comprehensive and full picture of the whole waste disposal scene. This, fortunately, was provided by two departmental reports, one commissioned by the previous Conservative Government and one commissioned by the last Labour Government. I have them here—the Report of the Technical Committee on the Disposal of Solid Toxic Wastes and the Report of the Working Party on Refuse Disposal. Both reports recommended that the organisation of waste disposal should be over larger areas. Although both reports were written against the background of the previous Administration's proposals for unitary authorities, the second report,

on refuse disposal, recommended that in any two-tier system of local government the function of both refuse collection and disposal should be allocated to the upper tier. That report went on to recommend —and this is most important—that, if it were decided that collection must remain a lower tier function, the two functions should be split rather than that the disposal function should be allocated to the lower tier.
In the light of these reports we have concluded that refuse collection is a truly local service and should therefore be allocated on a local basis in our two-tier system of local government reorganisation. That is why it is allocated to district councils.
Hon. Members will know that there is great confusion in the minds of the public about many things but one matter in local government about which they are not confused is that they like their dustbins emptied and, if they are not emptied, they like to go to the district council office, as it will be, and see that their dustbins are emptied. That is where this service meets the consumer.
The situation of refuse disposal is very different. That is why, in the light of these reports and of the environmental considerations, we came to the conclusions that we did.
With Amendment No. 259 we are also discussing Amendment No. 270, which provides for the transfer of the functions of local authorities under the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, 1972, upon reorganisation, to county councils and the Greater London Council in England and district councils in Wales. These provisions are completely in line with the refuse disposal arrangements which I have already discussed. The Act was passed on 30th March, 1972 and made it an offence, punishable by heavy penalties, to dispose of poisonous, noxious or polluting waste in circumstances in which it might cause an environmental hazard, and introduced notification procedure on harmful waste which has operated from 3rd August this year. The Act requires local authorities to keep records of the description, quantity and place of deposit of notifiable waste deposited in their areas. It is clearly sensible, if we are to reorganise the arrangements for disposing of refuse and give them


to the counties under the new local government reorganisation, that all the provisions of this Act which, as my right hon. Friend made clear, is at this stage only an interim Act, should also apply to counties in the same way. It is clearly desirable that the functions of enforcing the Act, receiving the notifications and keeping records of waste deposits in the area should rest with the authorities already responsible for refuse disposal.
Again, hon. Members know—and I as a member representing a Midland constituency know particularly—the real problem of the disposal of toxic wastes with which local authorities have been grappling. Now, for the first time, they have the opportunity to reorganise this in a sensible way so that the counties will be responsible for the toxic waste, the domestic refuse and all the rest. I must have made this sufficiently clear when I was discussing it some months ago, but, having read the reports and examined the situation on the ground during the recess, everything I have seen has made me believe fundamentally that the Government were right to put this responsibility with the counties.
To sum up, briefly. The collection of waste needs to be handled flexibly and locally because collection is a truly local service and, if it goes wrong it should be dealt with on a local basis for the benefit of the consumer. The disposal of domestic and industrial waste, both toxic and inert, presents problems of an altogether different degree. Two independent committees have reached the clear conclusion that this disposal should be co-ordinated by authorities covering larger areas and having considerable resources.
The allocation of land for refuse disposal purposes, the expensive technology needed to dispose of refuse, the system of control over the operation of tips and the opportunity of co-ordinating the disposal of different kinds of waste arising in an area are all matters which require new initiatives, indeed a new outlook and the application of new resources. The environmental considerations—and I beg the House not to under-estimate them—and the conservation and the recycling of waste materials demand larger authorities with new resources, such authorities as

the metropolitan counties and the new counties in England. It is in this light that the Government must firmly hold to their convictions that the new counties will be the proper authorities to carry out this task. If we are to have a new initiative, if we take the environment seriously, if we are not satisfied with the present situation, and if we are serious in our talk about recycling and conservation, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

4 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I will not spend a great deal of time on Amendment No. 270. I think that I will carry the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State with me when I say that both sides of the House co-operated in the original Bill. We did it very quickly, but we all agreed that it needed a great deal of careful thought afterwards. I do not wish to make a point on this, but a last-minute insertion on this subject in the Lords needs to be studied very closely. I do not say that I would come to a different conclusion from the Government, but a great deal more study is required.
However, it is worth while considering the history of Amendment No. 259. On 19th July this year this House decided by 190 votes to 186 that the functions of collection and disposal of refuse in non-metropolitan counties should properly be undertaken by the district councils. On 19th September, in Committee, their Lordships decided by 98 votes to 56 that these functions should be split, with the county councils dealing with disposal and the district councils with collection. Both votes were whipped on the Government side and neither vote, I believe, correctly shows the real strength of the arguments.
I say this because in this House 13 speeches were wholly against the split and three only were in favour. In aonther place the debate was more evenly divided, but even there seven speeches were against the division of functions and five only in favour—a figure which contrasts very strongly with the whipped vote at the end.
It is always said, and I understand it, that the decision of another place gives us here the chance to have second thoughts, but that means second thoughts for the Government as well as for ordinary hon. Members. What second


thoughts mean to the Government, I think, was clearly stated by Lord Sandford on 19th September, when he said:
 As the Committee will have realised, our second thoughts were exactly the same as our first thoughts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords: 19th September, 1972, c. 895.]
That does not argue a very long cerebral process.
The Under-Secretary has put his points, as he always does, extremely well, moderately and fairly, but no fresh points have been made since his last speech on the subject on 19th July. The Government have not listened to the arguments on the other side and they have refused to budge. That is perhaps why this Bill, one of the first to receive a Second Reading in this Session, which has in no way been restricted by the Opposition—as I think hon. Members opposite will agree—now limps forward on the last day to receive the Royal Assent just in time for Prorogation.
The Government argue that this does not matter, that collection and disposal should be divided functions, but all the precedents are against them. District councils have been doing both these functions ever since 1936. Indeed, in Wales, under this very Bill, the district councils will still be in the 1936 position. They will still be both collecting refuse and disposing of it.
The Government's argument in favour of this differentiation is very curious. They say that it is because of the large size of some of the new districts in Wales. What about the old county boroughs in England? What about Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, the Medway towns, Bristol, Blackburn and all the county boroughs? All of them are much larger than most of the districts—there are exceptions—in Wales.
Again, the Government say "What about Greater London?" They made great play with that in another place. Under the London Government Act the London boroughs collect the refuse and the GLC disposes of it. I am not convinced that even here control should be divided, but at least there is a slightly better case, because the correct analogy is not between London and the non-metropolitan counties but between

London and the metropolitan counties. It may be that where there is a continuous build-up conurbation it might be better to do it in this way.
I say that I have reservations about this; clearly, so had the GLC. The Government cannot dispute that the GLC took over five years to take over the process of refuse disposal from the London boroughs. It began in 1967, and has continued in a modified form ever since. I can think of one London borough which to this day takes the refuse in its own vans to a tip outside the Greater London area boundary and there tips it, and the GLC pays a contribution towards the mileage. Whether that can be called a clear division of function I do not know. It is certainly a rather muddled one.
Of course, the Government's strongest argument is the environmental one. The reports to which the Under-Secretary referred—the Report the Working Panty on Refuse Disposal and the Report of the Technical Committee on the Disposal of Solid Toxic Wastes—add some weight to their case.
Incidentally, I am delighted that both the Under-Secretary, today, and the Secretary of State, when we debated this on Report and beat him on the argument, made the point that one of those reports was made under a Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman has not always regarded reports made under a Labour Government as gospel. He took rather a different view, for example, of the report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission. It is nice to know that this one at least has the accolade. This is reasonable; we all do it. When a report says something which we favour, we quote it. When it says something that we do not favour, we gloss over it. Perhaps I might tell the House in a moment of something that I think was glossed over in one of those reports.
One can see the arguments for rubbish disposal being at county level, for the reasons given. Land reclamation, of course, is one. The Under-Secretary did not make the point, so I will do it for him, that since highways and transport considerations are liable to be with the larger authority—the county—it is reasonable to bring the enormous trucks that do the tipping under the same control.
But there are, of course, counterbalancing factors. No one suggests that this is entirely one way. The House had some difficulty in coming to a decision, although I think that it came to the right one. I believe that the counterbalancing arguments are conclusive.
First, there is no expertise in this matter with the non-metropolitan counties. I showed earlier the problem that the GLC faced. This is a tight-knit conurbation—one London—and yet it was five years before the GLC was able to begin the process of taking over. In London the expertise is available, very often a 10-minute bus ride or an easy telephone call away. It is not so with the non-metropolitan counties.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the GLC took the expertise from the borough cleansing departments, that it took those officers into the GLC to operate this service?

Mr. Silkin: That is a very good point. No doubt the Minister will say that they can do the same in the non-metropolitan counties—that they can take the experts from the cleansing departments. But that will have two results. First, it will denude the new cleansing departments of the officers who will be needed for the collection of refuse and, secondly, there are the distances involved. If we are to take the cleansing department from, say, Southampton and move it to Winchester in order that the expertise may go to Winchester, or from Portsmouth to Winchester—because there is no direct link between the two—we shall be in a tremendous mess, and five years will not be long enough to do it.
We are therefore liable to get into a much worse position than that which existed between the GLC and the London boroughs, if the counties do not have the expertise that the districts have. The districts have laid out money, they have trained staff, they have all that is necessary to do the job. When it comes to protecting the environment, I have to remind the Secretary of State that the districts are no less keen on protecting the environment than are the counties.
A moment ago we talked about Amendment No. 270, which deals with the effect of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, 1972, which we passed in this

House and in another place in one week flat, but I cannot remember that the GLC was a slouch when it came to giving the information necessary to deal with the problem. On the contrary, I believe that every hon. Member received full information from the AMC, whose members were no less keen than were the counties to deal with the problem—and quite rightly. The real criticism here is that the Amendment divides the functions which are properly one process.
The Under-Secretary referred to reports submitted to the Department and said that they were in favour of the counties dealing with disposal of refuse. He quoted from the report of the working party on refuse disposal, but let us see what that quotation actually was and examine those words a little more closely. The working party said:
We consider that there are over-riding advantages when both functions are under unified control.
We might even deduce from that that it said "We even go on to say that we prefer the counties to do it. We have dealt with these arguments, but the overriding arguments are that there should be unified control." But the effect of this Amendment, previously rejected by this House, is to divide those functions and to divide control, which is exactly what the working party did not want done.
I agree that the working party thought that the county was a better proposition for doing it. The county has the larger area and, speaking for myself and, I think, for my right hon. and hon. Friends, or most of them, I have not been doctrinaire in this matter either in Committee or on Report. I have talked about the obvious advantages of keeping both functions together, and I have said that if it is to be at the county level both functions should go to the county level. I am prepared to consider that: what I am not prepared to consider is division of those functions.
I do not want to be dogmatic— and I know that I am liable to offend all those who believe in the districts even more passionately than I do, although I believe that the old county borough had a great deal to be said for it and that the districts should have more power—but I foresee that there might well come a time when, for the reasons given by the UnderSecretary—the cost of expensive equipment, although many districts such as


Bristol have very large and expensive equipment already—and moving into another era as a result of technological advance, because of the sophistication of equipment, we may get to the stage where districts may not be able to cope. It is perfectly right to consider that prospect, but we are considering the question as at this moment, and what we are liable to suffer is not only loss of democratic control, as will certainly happen, but loss of efficiency as well because of the loss of expertise about which I have spoken.
4.15 p.m.
In the meantime, as this process goes along, let us consider one other thing. I have heard it suggested that Clause 100, the ubiquitous Clause 100, the handmaiden of the Bill, is a splendid means of dealing with the difficulty where the district council has expertise and the county realises that it can allow the district to continue the function of disposal on an agency basis. But Clause 100 is a double-edged sword. If it is true of the county it is true of the district, so if the district council is given the function and in the course of time equipment becomes more expensive and sophistication more the order of the day, it may equally by Clause 100 call the county to its aid—and perhaps not only the county.
I said a moment ago that it was interesting to note that the London borough I quoted as using its own vans to dispose of refuse actually tips its vans on to a space outside the GLC area, and it may be just in the distance that one can see what may eventually happen, though not now. It may well be then that these problems are dealt with not on a county basis hut, if the equipment is to be expensive and sophisticated, on a regional basis.
It is because I believe genuinely, for all I have a certain affection for larger areas and larger administrative units, that this is so much a matter for the health of the community as well as of the environment, and because I believe that it has been done up to now extraordinarily efficiently, particularly by some of the more progressive and forward-looking county boroughs, that I ask the House to reverse the Amendment, to disagree with their Lordships, and to reinstate what I believe was

a sensible decision made by this House three months ago.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of what I know of my own district, which is in Staffordshire, where we have spent a great deal of money on plant, I believe that the district is the right unit at this stage in time. It is quite possible to look further ahead, and the Government are a very forward-looking Government, but the danger is that the best can be the enemy of the good and that we are getting to a situation where in six, 10 or 15 years' time this has to be a regional matter because the expense and so forth will be way beyond the reach of both the district and the county and we shall have a much higher level of sophisticated disposal.
But at this stage, when we have complication enough in the switch-over, we have to ask ourselves where, for instance, the GLC got its men from. It got them from the cleansing departments of the London boroughs. This is just the danger with which we could be faced in an area such as Stafford and Stone. We would have all the problems of the reconcentration of forces, and leaving the cleansing side bereft of some of the best people.
At this stage, division of forces is an error. Having gone into the subject at some length with my local authority, I am convinced that the original decision of the House was correct. I therefore hope that on this matter the Government will have second thoughts.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I rarely have the opportunity of following the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and even less opportunity of agreeing with him. However, I share his sentiments, because Stoke-on-Trent—I have been a member of the Stoke-on-Trent council for 20 years—provides an illustration of the importance of maintaining the present position of district councils.
Stoke-on-Trent covers an area of approximately 30 square miles. It has a much larger population than any other district in the new county. It has carried refuse collection and disposal to a degree of sophistication which is probably not to be found elsewhere in the county. The council is now building an incinerator


which will cost about £3½ million. The economics of the scheme are based largely on the supply of heat through steam to the local Michelin tyre factory.
Stoke-on-Trent has built up a considerable expertise. The chief officer of the collection and disposal department has been in a recent year the national president of the appropriate professional association. We are opposed to a situation which will mean that we shall have to ask that chief officer to confine himself to the relatively routine job of the collection of refuse. Moreover, we shall have to disperse the staff, which has been built up over a considerable period, and dismantle much of the expertise that we now have.
There is no logic in that sort of reorganisation of local government. Had the reorganisation been based on Maud, the situation would have been different. I ask the Secretary of State to be a little more flexible. If he cannot grant the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), I ask that he be flexible in the sense of permitting the handful of authorities with a population of a quarter of a million to have the power which will lead to the efficient collection and disposal of refuse. They have done so for a considerable time and they can do so in future. My plea at this late hour—I appreciate that this may be hopeless—is that the Secretary of State should listen to the voices of reason and make a slight concession in the interests of democratic argument.

Mr. A. P. Costain: In July I spoke in favour of the uniformity of collection and disposal of rubbish. First, in case there is any misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition, I make it clear that no pressure has been placed upon me from my Whips. My Whip did not notice that I voted against the Government and defeated the Government.
I have considered the matter and I have had the opportunity of discussing it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and with two of his Ministers and my local authority. I have made a great survey of the situation. I realise that in July I was prejudiced

because my local authority was about to build a refuse disposal unit in conjunction with other local authorities. Not unnaturally, I was prejudiced because of the disappointment which the local authority expressed to me that, having gone through the long process of providing a disposal unit, it appeared that it might not have the opportunity to run it. I used the argument that it is much better for one local authority to do both jobs. I recall that I used the expression "One back to slap; or one rear to kick if things go wrong".
I have had the opportunity of making further investigation. I still hold the view that there is a good argument for the district councils to have both functions, which was the point made by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). However, having studied the situation in detail and having had the opportunity of reading the reports in detail, I realise the great many new items which are difficult to dispose of which will be put in the dustbins. In view of the development of plastics and the difficulties which indestructible plastics present, I realise that there are great environmental problems. I was surprised to learn of the extra cost which will be incurred if we are to tackle the problem in the next century.
The Bill, which sets out the reorganisation of local authorities, is not for today but for tomorrow. After a great deal of thought. I have reversed my decision. I have not done so lightly, because I do not like to do things lightly. If I vote against the Government, I do so because of conviction. I reversed my decision, having come to the conclusion that local authorities need a big area in which to install disposal units and that expensive equipment may be needed for disposal.
I then considered whether it would not be a good idea for the counties to collect the local refuse. I thought about that matter in some detail and I came to the conclusion that one of the matters which concern ordinary householders on a personal basis is the collection of refuse from dustbins. Collection is a real problem for the housewife, particularly in hot weather. I then realised that the housewife wants to grouse to somebody when matters are not going as she wishes.
I decided that the best body for the housewife to grouse to was the local district office and the local district councillor. I realised that it was better that the rubbish should be collected by the local district council. It is better that a housewife should have the opportunity of complaining to the local office or the local councillor, who is probably known to her personally. Therefore, I decided that the decision which the Government reached was the right one.
I was worried in July that many of the technical facilities were to be taken from the district councils. I was worried whether the district councils would have enough functions to enable them to retain the technical people in their offices. The Amendments of another place, particularly those to Clause 108, give the local authorities the opportunity, if they feel that they are being deprived of these duties, to complain to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can act as the arbiter. I am now convinced that we must accept the decision as put forward in another place.

Sir Robin Turton: My hon. Friend the Member for Folke-stone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has convincingly explained his conversion on the road from the dustbin. However, I am still worried about the Government's decision. I believe that collection and disposal should be in the same hands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe explained, collection must be a district matter so that the district can received the grouses of the housewives. Therefore, the disposal should be in the hands of the district authority. Against that, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that the working party on refuse disposal said that disposal should be in the hands of the counties. It must be remembered that the working party had a strong minority report, where those who represented the rural districts said that disposal should be in the hands of the district authority.
One of the difficulties which I considered on listening to the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was that a debate on refuse disposal always concentrates on the situation in London. In my view, the problem of London and of the metropolitan counties

is entirely different from the problem of the non-metropolitan counties.

4.30 p.m.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would consider the position in my area. This Lords Amendment will involve the whole area from Reeth down to Selby in the matter of refuse disposal—something like an 80-mile length with a width of about 40 miles. It would be quite impossible administratively to deal with all refuse disposal, and it would forbid the larger district authority covering something like 300 square miles to deal with refuse disposal.
I believe that we are making a major mistake. It is true that under Clause 100 the matter could be rectified, but I do not think we will find, once we have given the counties the power of handing over refuse disposal, that they will do so, because there is a sort of megalomania among the larger local authorities and they will not wish the smaller local authorities to handle matters which are attractive or lucrative.
I am extremely anxious that the new district authorities should be conservation minded. I believe that we are in danger of dealing a great blow at the attitude of district authorities to conservation. This matter will be in the hands of the county authorities. I am speaking purely of the non-metropolitan counties; I am not arguing about the metropolitan counties. I therefore hope the Minister will think again and will consider whether we were not right earlier when by a small majority we placed this duty in the hands of the district authorities. I know that the district authorities feel very strongly about this matter, and I hope that when we are creating these new districts which should have sufficient powers to deal with the problem of refuse disposal, we shall not deny them what they want to have.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), I am concerned at the fate of the more rural authorities. I noted that the Under-Secretary remarked that tips and incinerators have been sited in the past in a way that has been offensive to the public and damaging to the environment. I fear that that danger will be increased if the decision about the siting of those tips is in rather remote hands, in my case at


Preston, rather than in the district councils themselves.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development said that the district council would continue to operate experienced teams. Indeed, so they will, providing they have got something to get their teeth into. It would be a disaster from the point of view of the local councils if this particularly expert function were to be taken from them. I can conceive of local councils being expected to take their refuse considerable distances over winding country roads which are difficult of access, whereas if they had the choice of siting, they would put it in an inconspicuous place which they would be proud to landscape and keep in a proper condition.
When it comes to the new district councils, we are talking of very big areas under the new set-up. Even under the previous set-up, when one of my urban districts, Carnforth, and a rural district, Lancaster, wished to deal with their sewage matters they amalgamated for the purpose. They did this over 10 years ago, and they got a very good system going. The rural district council of Guildford has pioneered another form of disposal to deal with sludge, namely that of toxic sludge, with the most up-to-date plant in the country at Pirbright. If a rural district council is allowed to retain this function, it will be proud to do it to the best of its ability, and if it finds that it is beyond its ability it will join with its neighbours, with whom it gets on very well, instead of being overridden by authorities at a considerable distance away.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): If the power of argument were the sole arbiter of events in this place, there could be no question about the way in which refuse disposal would be organised. I am sorry that the Government are taking a firm line, although I recognise that the decision rests with them and that, having come to a decision, it would be wrong for the Government to change their attitude without the strongest of reasons.
Very good reasons have been put to the House this afternoon. I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member

for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) for the very excellent and comprehensive manner in which he touched upon many of the subjects, some of them new to our discussions. We have covered this whole subject very comprehensively indeed, and if I were to add anything it would only be by way of repetition.
I am glad that today we are not having a repetition of the defence that refuse tipping is uncivilised and barbaric. That seems to be the strength of some of the Government's opposition to one of our earlier Amendments. I think there is recognition that it will be many years before we can see the end of refuse dumping, however desirable it may be. I think we would all like to see an end of it. The sophisticated methods towards which we are moving—and I hope they will come soon—will lead to the cessation of the necessity for tipping. Of course, it has certain advantages, but there are also overwhelming disadvantages.
I am aware of the elaborate arrangements with regard to the agency Clause. Could the Secretary of State be a little more definitive on the question of the agency and refuse disposal, recognising as we all do the expertise that has been built up by district councils and which we must have if we are to have satisfactory and adequate means of disposal in the future? I understand that under the agency Clause a definitive date of 1st April, 1974, has been mentioned.
I wonder whether the accent could be put the other way round and that for a period of, say, 10 years there could be an assumption that disposal would be more wisely handled by district councils than by the county councils. The case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) is overwhelming in this respect, and there are many other parts of the country where this must be the case. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able, in the special circumstances of refuse disposal, to tell us that some special agency arrangement would receive the Government's approbation and encouragement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): May I, first of all, say on this issue, on which I know there have been divisions of view in this


House and in another place, that in setting out our approach to local government reform in the White Paper, and thereafter in negotiations and discussions that we had with local authorities, and in all the actions that we have taken in pursuing the policy which is now developing into what will become the new Act I have always stated that wherever, in the view of the Government, a particular function could be reasonably performed at district level, it should be so performed. I have been criticised, sometimes by those holding the original Maud concepts and sometimes by the County Councils Association, for giving a number of powers to district councils which they considered should either remain with or go entirely to the counties.
I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that the philosophy which I have been pursuing has been very much one of trying to give the maximum power to the districts wherever I have regarded a function as one which the districts could competently and sensibly carry out.
The same philosophy has applied very much in the present case. It is perfectly reasonable to argue, as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) did, that there is advantage in having collection and disposal in one authority. I well understand that; it is easy to grasp the logic of it. However, all those who have studied this matter from the environmental standpoint have come to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to have a united function, and at county level.
Holding the views which I do on the importance of this matter—I shall come to that—I could have decided that it was right to put both these functions at county level, but I did not do that because I considered that collection was a function which not only could be well organised at district level but had a close relationship with the individual requirements of certain localities, principally, of course, with reference to the frequency of collections. For example, there are considerable differences between one London borough and another as regards the volume of collections taken in particular localities, and so on.
However, although there are certain resulting organisational disadvantages, I did not do that because of my belief that one should endeavour to ensure,

where functions can be reasonably organised at district level, that they should be so organised, and I accordingly decided to put the collection at district level. I should have been happy to put disposal there, too, if I were not utterly convinced that it is vital that disposal should be organised over a larger area.
There have been references to the working party reports in support of my general line of argument, but, leaving aside those reports and what many leading environmentalists have said in support of my broad approach on this matter, I assure the House that, having spent just over two years as Secretary of State for the Environment, with, as one of my prime objectives, the reduction of pollution in all its forms, I have tried, as has the Department, to look at pollution in all its forms, first from the point of view of sensibly monitoring the system and, second, with the aim of reducing pollution to the minimum.
We have examined the resources which will be needed to achieve our objective. We have examined in great detail our river problems and the problems of water organisation and sewerage. We have looked in great detail at the present refuse disposal picture and at the problems, both present and future, which face us.
I assure the House personally, having spent a great deal of time trying to reach what I believe to be the right conclusions, conclusions on which there is no party difference—these are matters of objective assessment—that I am absolutely convinced that we must in future organise our disposal of refuse on a wider basis.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, eventually, a regional basis might be the answer. There would certainly be solid arguments for a regional approach to the problem, but we are dealing here with the reform of local government, with two levels of local government, and on that basis I regard it as essential that disposal should be a county function.

Mr. John Silkin: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am reluctant to interrupt his train of thought, but I must say that the point I made about the regions related to the extremely expensive and sophisticated equipment of the future, which would then bring in both county and district.

Mr. Walker: Yes, I recognise that. I come now to the reasons why I believe that we should proceed as I have proposed. My right hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) and for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred, very understandably, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), to their own districts, pointing out how efficiently those districts handled their problems and asking, in effect, why there should now be a change. There are plenty of districts handling the problem in a rational and efficient way. Some of them have just installed new equipment, new incinerators, and so on. However, I assure the House that there is a great deal of refuse disposal done by nowhere near the best means available.

4.45 p.m.
Many of us know of the badly kept tip. My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) spoke of the need not to be anti-tipping at this stage. Tipping has a rôle to play, I agree, but he will know, travelling about the country as he does, that there are plenty of areas where there is considerable complaint about the way in which tipping is not organised and is ineffectively controlled. Serious problems have resulted to our river systems, for example, due to refuse disposal being done without proper geological study of the impact on the river system in a locality. District authorities have not done this out of a desire to pollute; it is just that they have not had available to them the resources necessary.
Although using their best endeavours, district authorities—there are plenty of them nation-wide—because of the limitations of their present resources and what will be available to them in future, have difficulty in doing the job in the best way.
There is a host of other major reasons in support of the line which I have taken. First, in the matter of tipping and infilling, because of its position in a number of spheres—clearance of derelict land, highway responsibilities, and so on—the county will have a much wider knowledge of the locations most in need of tipping for land reclamation purposes than any single district could have. It is likely, for example, that one district will have no

infilling problems whereas another in the same county will have substantial problems, and in such circumstances a county-directed system will be of considerable assistance.
Also, if there is a wide range of in-filling schemes at any one time such as a county is likely to have, there will be certain types of refuse disposal particularly suited to one geological area or one land reclamation scheme as opposed to another. This is another respect in which the county will have an important ad vantage.
There is the further advantage of full utilisation of existing and future resources. I could cite a fairly large number of schemes which have been operated by districts where a progressive and ambitious engineer has persuaded his council that, rather than face the ghastly business of finding more tipping land within the district, it would do better to go over to incineration. The council has ultimately agreed to make the necessary expenditure and has put up a fine incinerator. Incidentally, I can tell the House that, second to sewerage works, I now open more incinerators than almost any other thing.
The district has put up a fine large incinerator, but what about the capacity? It is larger than the district itself needs. In such circumstances, districts have often gone to their neighbours and asked them to join in. Sometimes, they have succeeded, but, alas, they have frequently not. There are plenty of places where four districts could have joined in the use of one incinerator, three have agreed, but one bang in the middle has not. This sort of pattern is beginning to develop throughout the country, and it is resulting in a fantastic waste of public resources.
In addition, the type of incinerator now being developed is of considerable importance from a technical standpoint. On the knowledge so far available, there is no doubt that an incinerator suitable for a catchment area of 200,000 to 400,000 is better from the standpoint of efficiency and pollution than the type of incinerator one would put in if one decided to go in for incineration covering a catchment area of only 100,000. It is also quite likely that as a result of technical development incinerators for even larger population catchment areas will have further


considerable advantages. The most tolerably effective incinerator should be for a population of 200,000 and above, and the Boundary Commission in its preliminary report suggests that we should have 190 districts of a population of less than 100,000. That equation shows that we shall not get the best application of the potentialities of incineration unless we put the function at county level.
Another very important argument is the availability of expertise. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) told of how, when the GLC organised the function, it took the expertise from the districts and boroughs. That is so, but if we examine a range of districts we will find that some have a very good chemist, others have the occasional use of a consulting chemist and others may have a junior and not very experienced chemist. Some have exceedingly good engineers, while others have more moderate engineers. Putting the function at county level will result in the organisation of new teams containing the whole range of expertise that will be needed. For example, the expertise of the geologist is becoming increasingly important, as we discover the adverse effects of the way in which refuse has been dumped in the past, and we need the expertise of the chemist and various other types of technical officers.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is underplaying to a very large extent the rôle of the boroughs. We set up boroughs' associations, through which in a whole range of areas the very expertise of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks is brought together on an honorary or paid basis. Therefore, we do not need to have the function under a county to do the things the right hon. Gentleman is outlining.

Mr. Walker: I believe it would be very difficult for the hon. Gentleman to find any of his party colleagues on the GLC —and probably this goes for most of the boroughs—who would be in favour of changing the system now that it has been established. For Greater London it certainly resulted in considerable technical advantages in bringing the team together, and also in a much better use of available resources.

Mr. Silkin: We can spend a long time arguing about London. But I introduced

it to dismiss it, because we are talking about non-metropolitan counties, not metropolitan counties.

Mr. Walker: My argument becomes very much stronger, because the major London boroughs already had a tolerable quality of expertise. That is not true of many of the existing districts or of the authorities that will result from the merger of some of them that will take place. The quality of total expertise on the subject available to numerous district councils is not of a nature which can either fully comprehend or expertly advise upon the method by which this function should be performed.

Mr. Cant: If, however, a large district can prove that it has the expertise, and if it falls within the magic population band which would be suitable for the economies of an incinerator, must the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of dull uniformity, insist that it should have the same powers as smaller districts? Will not he make an exception?

Mr. Walker: I will come on to this question, which partly concerns the use of the agency system. For a city such as Stoke, for example, it would be absurd to organise the performance of the function on such a basis that the expertise and resources, the plant and equipment, available within Stoke were not used and applied by some of the surrounding districts of what would be the new district of Stoke, which could well find great advantage in using those facilities. There is advantage in having the whole strategy organised on a county basis; those major county boroughs with facilities, many of which are working at less than capacity, will benefit.
With regard to the use of the agency, there is no doubt that this was never a function or power that the counties clamoured to have. They agreed on the logic of what is needed, and agreed that in terms of the overall planning strategy of the county it will be an advantage to be involved, but they will have to rely on the close collaboration of those operating in the districts. I have no doubt that this is a sphere where they will arrange sensible and rational agency agreements with the districts concerned, but I hope in such a way as to pursue a policy across the county.
There is a final factor which I earnestly ask the House to consider. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone advanced the argument that the provision may well be needed later, but not now. To some extent that was the theme of other right hon. and hon. Members. I believe that if anything we are late in taking action in this sphere. I assure the House that, on all the information available to me, the speed with which this country and many other nations will have to go over to a much more positive approach to recycling will hit us very hard in the future. Raw material resources world-wide are diminishing at a fast pace. We are disposing of our refuse in a way in which very little recycling takes place. It will not be possible to organise recycling effectively on the basis of district councils trying to grapple with the technologies involved in that task.
Therefore, while recognising the strength of the arguments the other way, I urge the House to realise that I plead the case not on any pro-district or pro-county arguments but because, having spent two years as Secretary of State for the Environment, I am certain that environmentally the provision is essential.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: We have had a very interesting and informative debate, although the Secretary of State's arguments were identical to those advanced by the Under-Secretary when we debated the matter in July. The only difference is that the Secretary of State spoke with less passion. The arguments were the same, because the situation is unchanged.
The House spent several hours debating the matter in July. I believe that the only reason why we have not had an extended debate today is that right hon. and hon. Members understandably feel that they have advanced all the arguments, which are the same today as they were in July. The Under-Secretary, whose contribution I in no way try to minimise, very effectively argued the Government's case on environmental grounds in July. The House decided by a majority then that it was wiser to let district councils in England have exactly the same responsibilities as the district councils in Wales. In the same Bill the Government have

stood on their head, in the arguments which the Secretary of State advanced this afternoon.
The only new argument we have heard today is that another place changed the decision. In opening today's debate the Under-Secretary said that the Government agreed with the other place. The shoe is on the other foot, because it was the Government who proposed the Amendment in the other place, and their troops loyally supported them there. So we had the dukes, the earls, the viscounts and the barons all saying that they knew more about the collection and disposal of refuse than right hon. and hon. Members of this House. It may be that they have superior knowledge in these matters—

Mr. Costain: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that one of their Lordships admitted that he had been in the dust-collecting business.

Mr. Thomas: He made it very clear that he was on the office level, by which I mean high office.
Today, the Government are asking right hon. and hon. Members of this House who voted on Report after hearing the same argument from the Treasury Bench to stand on their heads. That is always an undignified posture. I believe that the Government are making a joke of this House, having brought the matter to the House and having had it thoroughly discussed, in saying that they are not prepared to accept the will of the House which was expressed quite clearly.
It is true that the Government are paying the price of rejecting all-purpose authorities. Endemic in the two-tier system is the awful problem of deciding which authority shall do what. It is the Secretary of State's main headache, as he indicated. If we are to have district councils, they must have proper functions, and the agency provision is not an adequate substitute in this case.
The AMC, the Rural District Councils Association and the parish councils have all made their representations to the Minister and to right hon. and hon. Members on this matter. They are not persuaded by the argument that has been advanced by the Secretary of State today. These people in local government


are as concerned with environmental factors and the well being of local government as any of us in this House.
The Secretary of State said that if it was organised on a county basis we should have at our disposal a greater knowledge of the need for reclamation schemes within a whole county area. But how can the Secretary of State advance that argument on the English side without advancing it on the Welsh side? He is responsible for the whole Bill. He did not once explain why he thought it was in the interests of the environment on this side of the Severn Bridge to have disposal on a county basis and on the other side of the Severn Bridge to leave it to our small district councils, bearing in mind that, by and large, our district councils are much smaller than those in England. In fact, with the exception of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport, I do not think that we have a district council with a population approaching the figure of 100,000.
Will the Secretary of State be good enough to explain what has puzzled me ever since I first saw the Bill? Why do not environmental considerations, which he elevated to such high principles, apply over the whole of England and Wales? There is no logic in the position that the Secretary of State is adopting on this question.
Then the Secretary of State said that if it is organised on a county basis we shall be able to get expertise on a better level. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has given in to his Department on this question. I do not think that it is a matter of high persuasion on principle. The right hon. Gentleman has not shown the strength that he should have shown. He knows that if it is better to get the expertise of chemists, engineers and the like on a county basis here, the same is bound to apply in Wales. But apparently he does not believe that to be so.
The right hon. Gentleman is arguing two ways at the same time. He is bringing double standards for local government in this Bill. He really does not do credit to himself in not explaining to the House why in a Bill for which he is responsible to the House he can argue both ways at the same time.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is not my right hon. Friend being unkind to the Secretary of State? If the right hon. Gentleman

said exactly why his Department advised him this way, it would be simply that if he could not show this power being given to the county there would be no reason for the county in the first place.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is always a great help. However, I believe that there are other reasons. One of them is to be seen tucked away at one end of the Front Bench opposite. I refer, of course, to the Minister of State for Wales. Of course, this Bill is two Measures in one. One Secretary of State has to answer for the Bill. The other can remain like a monk in silent prayer. The Secretary of State for the Environment carries responsibility for the whole Bill, and it is a complete nonsense to have two sets of arguments for local government based on the rough line of the boundary between England and Wales.
I believe that the Secretary of State is showing an unwanted arrogance. He used to be accused of that in the old days when he sat on these benches. Since becoming Secretary of State he has tried to be much more kindly and winning. However, it is arrogant to deal with only one side of this argument and not to tell the House how he can justify a completely opposite solution for local government in the Principality of Wales to that in England. Our problems are the same. The only difference between us is that we have some people who speak the Welsh language. But that is not an argument about refuse disposal. It has no bearing on why the Minister should have argued as he has today.
I suggest that the divided responsibility proposed in England will cause endless bickering in local government. Imagine the new county authority which decides that it wants to have a refuse tip in one district to take rubbish from another district. After all, 90 per cent. of our refuse is still disposed of by tipping. Only 10 per cent. is incinerated. The view was advanced in another place that in the next 10 years we are not likely to reach the point where even 25 per cent. is got rid of through the incinerator. I can imagine the nastiness between district councils and county councils over the siting of refuse tips. If responsibility in the new large districts being created lies with the local council, that at least is one difficulty which can be avoided.
I want now to say a word to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). He is a very distinguished Methodist. I am a very humble one. However, we have this in common: we both believe in conversion and in backsliders. The hon. Gentleman has not been converted. He is a backslider. I have great respect for those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who have had the courage to say in October what they said in July and who have said that they intend to stand by the vote that they cast. Merely to please their own Front Bench, they will not run away from the vote that they cast in July, especially since no other argument has been advanced. Unlike them, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe has said that since the debate in July, he has been reading the reports. I had a very high opinion of the hon. Gentleman, and I did not think that he would insult the House by coming here unprepared last July.

Mr. Costain: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to admit that I did point out at the time that Clause 108 alters the attitude towards what district authorities can do? I hope he will give me credit for that.

Mr. Thomas: I would like to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman for Methodist reasons, but, really, he stood up this afternoon as if he was in a Moscow trial confessing. He had to put himself right with his Front Bench.
The House owes a great deal to people who have the strength and the courage to stand by what they really believe. That

is what hon. Members have done, and I have done it myself. If hon. Members, to please the Secretary of State for the Environment, are prepared to stand on their heads they deserve the caricature which they will receive from the general public.
I have endeavoured in the few minutes I have taken to point out to the Secretary of State that he and the Government have adopted double standards. They have not tried to clear them up in the House. Neither he nor the Secretary of State for Wales did us the honour to serve in Committee on the Bill. Had they done so we could have pressed them on this. However, this is water under the bridge. Now the right hon. Gentleman, because the House of Lords has changed our decision, and without any other reason at all, expects this House to follow the aristocratic trail set us down the Corridor. There is no reason why the House should not stand by its decision taken last July, and give to district authorities the responsibility which smaller district authorities in Wales are given by the Government and which they carry out effectively, or they would not be entrusted with the powers. They would not in any way overthrow environmental considerations, in England any more than they would in Wales.
The Minister has not made out a good case, and I hope the House will stand by its decision taken in July.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 123.

Division No. 352.]
AYES
[5.14 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fowler, Norman


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cary, Sir Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Churchill, W. S.
Goodhart, Philip


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorst, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dixon, Piers
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fell, Anthony
Hiley, Joseph


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fortescue, Tim
Hornsby-Smlth,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Carlisle, Mark
Foster, Sir John
Howell, David (Gulldlord)




Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


James, David
Morrison, Charles
Stokes, John


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Murton, Oscar
Sutcliffe, John


Jessel, Toby
Nott, John
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tobbit, Norman


Kinsey, J. R.
Parkinson, Cecil
Temple, John M.


Kirk, Peier
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lamond, James
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan, Dr. .Gerard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Redmond, Robert
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Luce, R. N.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


MacArthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


McLaren, Martin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Madel, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George



Maude, Angus
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speed, Keith
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oram, Bert


Albu, Austen
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Allen, Scholefield
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Areher, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Barnes, Michael
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, Ernest G.


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rowlands, Ted


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Latham, Arthur
Steel, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lawson, George
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dalyell, Tam
Leonard, Dick
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lipton, Mareus
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
McBride, Neil
Tuck, Raphael


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Urwin, T. W.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin


Dempsey, James
Mackie, John
Weitzman, David


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Whitlock, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Edelman, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mendelson, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. James Hamilton and


Golding, John
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Gourlay, Harry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 261, in page 277, line 47, leave out from "authority" to end of line 50 and insert—
(2) In section 87(3) for the words "a county council or local" there shall be substituted the words" any such council or".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 262, 263, and 266 to 269.

Mr. Speed: This group of Amendments is a tidying-up operation and does not include anything of great substance.
Amendment No. 261 has two purposes. First, it deletes from paragraph 9 of Schedule 14 a provision which causes a district council to be treated as highway authority for roads it is maintaining for the purposes of Section 87 of the Public Health Act, 1936, that is, the provision of public conveniences. Secondly, it amends references to the councils exercising those powers under Section 87(3) of the 1936 Act so as to include the Greater London Council and parish and community councils.
Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 are largely drafting. No. 263 provides that a highway authority shall in all cases exercise control over public conveniences under Section 88 of the 1936 Act and that that control shall not be exercisable by the district council that is maintaining the highway.

Amendment No. 266 is drafting.
Amendment No. 267 provides that, in addition to advertising in a local newspaper, a local authority shall give notice of its intention to any parish or community council, or chairman of any parish meeting, whose areas would be affected. The notice should be served not later than the day on which the advertisement is first published in the newspaper. This is in conjunction with paragraph 25 of Schedule 14 enabling local authorities to pass resolutions applying or disapplying throughout their areas certain enactments dealing with matters such as hackney carriage licensing, music and dancing licencing, servants' registries and street naming. The Amendment is small but no doubt important and it is made in answer to a plea made by my hon. Friend the

Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) in Committee.
Amendment No. 268 relates to paragraph 40 of Schedule 14 and revises the allocation of functions under Sections 44, 46 and 48 of the Public Health Act, 1961. It also deletes a provision which causes a district council to be treated as the highway authority for roads it is maintaining for the purposes of the application of those Sections. The re-allocation of functions under those sections means that the powers available under Sections 44 and 46 of the Public Health Act, which are powers to erect barriers in streets and to prevent forecourts from abutting on streets, will, in respect of streets which are highways, be exercisable concurrently by the county council's highway authority and the district council's local authority. Section 48 of that Act will be covered by the provisions of Clause 176(2)(e) and those powers which allow the provision of pavement lights and ventilators in streets will be exercisable by the district council only as the local authority.

Amendment No. 269 is purely drafting.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 177

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Lords Amendment: No. 271 in page 128, line 20, after "to" insert:
section 178 of and Part I of".

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 272 to 283, 285 to 301, 306 to 308, 310 to 314, 437, 439 to 442 and 445.

Mr. Page: We now reach a group of Amendments about planning. The first group is a tidying-up group, a re-presentation with some improvements. The next group deals with the conservation of listed buildings, but I want to exclude that important matter from the group under No. 271.
Most of the Amendments under No. 271 are technical. They include presentational improvements, such as bringing together in Schedule 16 all the various provisions relating to planning, as well as a number of drafting points, the correction of minor errors, the avoidance of duplication and a number of provisions which vary from a basic allocation of functions between county and district planning authorities, which has already been determined by the House.
I fear that there are many Amendments in the group, but they are of the nature with which one is familiar with this kind of Lords Amendments.
Nos. 271, 272, 273, 274, 276 and 308 pave the way for others with the intention of bringing together in Schedule 16 all the provisions of the Bill which deal with the adaptation of enactments relating to planning. They provide for the existing Schedule 16, which deals with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, to be referred to and described as Part I of the Schedule and for the provisions brought forward from Schedule 29 to form the new Part II of the Schedule.
The main purpose—and this runs through all the Amendments—is to prepare for the movement of all these tidying-up Amendments into Part II of the Schedule and to pave the way for Part III into which it is convenient to bring together all the provisions for the obtaining of advice in connection with listed buildings and so on.

5.30 p m.
Amendment No. 274 is merely the correction of an error in a reference to the Town and County Planning Act. It is nothing more than drafting.
Amendment No. 277 enables a district planning authority, when preparing a local plan, to examine certain further matters which may be relevant to the plan where it considers it necessary, bearing in mind the extent to which these matters may already have been covered by the county planning authority's survey carried out in the course of preparation of the structure plan. This is no limit to the district planning authority's powers. In fact, it is an extension, and it will find it a useful reform to the planning law.
Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 are consequential partly on a substantive Amendment made at an earlier stage and partly on the Town and County Planning (Amendment) Act, 1972, an Act which during the course of the proceedings on the Bill has presented us with new problems which were not before us when the Bill was drafted.
Amendment No. 280 allocates to county planning authorities the continuing responsibility for street authorisation maps forming part of the old development plans which are preserved as local plans under the 1971 Act. A street authorisation map enables the local planning authority to define the line of a road in advance of development and so influence the layout.
Amendment No. 281 is purely technical to put right a rather inappropriate phrase.
Amendment No. 282 deals with the requirements that local planning authorities should advertise applications for permission for development affecting the appearance or character of a conservation area. The existing paragraph 21 places this responsibility on the authority by which the application falls to be determined. The Amendment provides instead that it shall rest on the county planning authority in national parks and on the district planning authority elsewhere There was a little ambiguity about this matter previously. I think the Amendment now puts the duties in the right places.
Amendments Nos. 283 and 285 are proposed for the better presentation of provisions which already appear in the Bill. It is a matter where two separate paragraphs could have been misleading and they have been combined into one.
Amendment No. 286 is to improve the drafting of the modifications dealing with which local planning authority is entitled to notification of a reference to a planning inquiry commission. We have taken the opportunity of making a slight reform in the law.
Amendment No. 287 deletes a provision in which powers under the 1971 Act relating to agreements regulating development or use of land, tree preservation and replacement and waste land are allocated to both county and district planning authorities. This is unnecessary,


because in another Clause it is clear that "local planning authority" includes both the county and the district planning authorities. Therefore, it is a superfluous phrase which we seek to omit by the Amendment.
Amendment No. 288 inserts a brief description of the section of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, to which reference is made. This is merely for the convenience of those using this legislation.
Amendment No. 289 has the same purpose as No. 288—a convenient reference.
Amendment No. 290 seeks to replace in a positive way the description of the authority to exercise certain powers under tree preservation orders made by the Secretary of State. Previously it was in a rather negative form. This turns it into a positive form.
Amendment No. 291 is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment No. 292 is of some importance. Before giving a direction under Section 54 of the 1971 Act, the Secretary of State must consult the local planning authority and the owner and occupier of the building concerned. The Amendment identifies the local planning authority which the Secretary of State must consult. That is the new subsection to paragraph 26.
The Amendment deals with three different points. The second point concerns the new paragraph 27 which makes it clear that the local planning authority entitled, by virtue of the provisions cited in that section, to enter land and carry out works required by an enforcement notice or a discontinuance order, is the authority which served the notice or made the order. It is strange that this is not clear in the existing provisions. However, it is not and we have endeavoured to make it clear here.
Under new paragraph 27(A) we specify which authority is the local planning authority for the purpose of appeals from magistrates' courts to the Crown Court concerning notices relating to waste land.
Amendment No. 293 provides that operations or any uses of land straddling national park boundaries should be county matters. It is important to make that point clear. There are and will be cases where the consideration of planning

functions over land which goes across a national park boundary will arise. We make it perfectly clear here that it is a national park matter for the whole of that land.
Amendment No. 294 seeks to adapt the interpretation of "local planning authority" for the purpose of compensation for planning decisions restricting new developments. This has been a difficult point in the past in practice when a local authority has withdrawn planning permission and has been required to pay compensation. In this Amendment and others we have tried to make it clear which authority has to pay the compensation.
Amendment No. 195 deals with an existing provision which relates to the identification of the local planning authority liable to pay compensation in respect of discontinuance orders and stop notices made or served by the Secretary of State. When the Secretary of State, with his default powers, serves one of these notices, local authorities are frequently in a difficult position as to who is liable for compensation if the notice is wrongly served or is set aside by the court later. The new wording provides for the positive identification of the local planning authority which will be liable to pay the compensation arising to be stated in the discontinuance order or the stop notice when it is served.
Amendments Nos. 296 and 297 are concerned with drafting.
Amendment No. 298 deals with compensation to be paid to statutory undertakers on refusal of planning permission. It is a long Clause, but there is nothing very much new in it. One of the new provisions is that the local authority which took the planning decision or served the enforcement notice on the statutory undertakers pays the compensation.
Amendment No. 299 relates to purchase notices concerning blighted property. As the House knows, the Secretary of State has to confirm these blight notices before they are effective. Before confirming the notice or taking any other action which he is required to take he has to give notice of his proposed action to the person who serves the notice, to the council on which the notice is served, and to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated. The


Amendment makes it clear to whom he should give notice before confirming the blight notice.
Paragraph 32A in Amendment No. 299 deals with compensation provisions applicable when a purchase notice is served under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Paragraph 32B simply ensures consistency with the allocation of highway functions. Paragraph 32C substitutes a fresh definition of "competent authority" when the question of stopping up footpaths and bridleways arises.
Amendment No. 300 deals with the situation that formerly only county councils and county borough councils could be constituent authorities of a joint planning board. The revised provision enables the Secretary of State to establish a joint planning board consisting either of county councils or of district councils. Paragraph 35B of the Amendment is consequential on the substitution in relation to the administration of national parks. I am endeavouring to deal only with those matters where something new arises and it is not merely a question of repetition of the existing law.
In Amendment No. 301 there is a new paragraph 35A identifying the local authority for the purpose of the blight caused by proposals to construct trunk or special roads. Anyone who suffers from blight needs to know on whom to serve the purchase notice. Paragraph 35B in the Amendment is rather technical. Its effect is to make clear which local planning authority has a right of appeal to the High Court against certain decisions of the Secretary of State in respect of planning orders. Paragraph 35C provides for the interpretation of references to a local planning authority in Section 276 of the 1971 Act. The Amendment provides that the obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the local planning authority before exercising his default powers should be limited to consultation with one authority, although I give the assurance that he will consult more widely when that course is appropriate.
Amendment No. 306 ensures that the validity of any revocation, modification or discontinuance order or of any enforcement or stop notice should not be questioned in any proceedings on the ground that the wrong authority had taken the action. One might feel that that would be a little unfair for the person on whom

the notice is served, but it is a reasonable provision because we wish these notices to take effect at once. If they are invalidated by a technicality, one is back to square one and perhaps a great deal of damage has been done to the environment in the meantime.
The purpose of Amendment No. 307 is to provide that the provisions of the paragraphs set out in the Amendment shall apply to Greater London. Amendments Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313 and 314 are purely drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 437 is consequential on the new planning arrangements. It avoids the need for the duplication of certain notices and identifies the authority to which certain applications should be made.

5.45 p.m.
Amendment No. 442 is consequential. It identifies the planning authority with which ecclesiastical authorities are to deal in the treatment of redundant churches. Amendment No. 443 is a drafting Amendment which removes ambiguity. Amendment No. 444 concerns the application of the audit provisions for the City of London. Amendment No. 445 deletes a reference to the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946, which now appears in another Amendment.
I apologise for the length of this group of Amendments, but they all have the purpose of putting all the planning matters which affect local authorities into one Schedule and taking the opportunity to tidy up some of the provisions, remove some of the ambiguities and put them in a form which will be convenient to those who use the legislation.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: We all welcome the fact that the Minister has taken the trouble to go through the Amendments in some detail. It was right that he should do so, because we have been confronted with an enormous number of Amendments and it is not easy in a short time to work out how important they are and what changes, if any, they involve. We accept that they represent a series of tidying-up operations.
I should like the Minister to give us an assurance on one point. I assume that the Amendments do not make any change in the previous arrangements concerning where responsibility lies as between the


two tiers of authority. On Amendment No. 299 the Minister referred to the provision dealing with the stopping up of highways and footpaths. I take it that that involves no change for local authorities. The words which appear in line 16 on page 6 of the Notice Paper suggest a change in the authority responsible for the diversion of highway. As many of the bodies concerned with this matter are not likely to be able to call on expert advice at short notice, I should like to have the Minister's assurance that this does not involve any major change in existing practice.

Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House, I give the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that assurance. At certain points we have said which local authority is liable for compensation, which local authority shall be consulted by the Secretary of State and which local authority shall be entitled to receive certain notices, but the functions themselves are not changed in any respect throughout these Amendments.
On the particular Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred the position is that orders under Section 209 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which enable the Secretary of State by order to authorise the stopping up of a portion of the highway may contain a provision for the protection of highways other than the highway which is being stopped up or diverted. He may specify in the order which local authority shall be the highway authority for that other highway. Under the present provisions of the Section the Secretary of State may specify any local authority for that purpose. The allocation of highway functions outside Greater London requires that this provision should in future apply only to county councils, and that is what the Amendment achieves. It removes a discretion of the Secretary of State to choose who shall deal with the highway. Since we have allotted the highway function under the Bill to counties, he must in the order say which is the county which will deal with that other highway next to the one stopped up.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 16

FUNCTIONS UNDER, AND AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS OF, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971

Lords Amendment: No. 284, in page 292, line 3, leave out "section 58 (building preservation notices)".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 302 to 305 and 309.

Mr. Page: If I may digress on to what may be a point of order, part of Amendment No. 309 deals closely with the conservation and preservation functions of the local authorities which we are discussing under the group headed by Amendment No. 284, and part of it has nothing whatever to do with them. I will address my remarks first to the conservation and preservation functions and shall then have to digress to something quite different so as to include the rest of Amendment No. 309.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better leave Amendment No. 309 and take it all together.

Mr. Page: If I may I will place the miscellaneous matters at the end of my address to the House so that they do not become confused with the conservation and preservation functions, because in this respect this is an important Amendment.
The functions of the local authorities to preserve and conserve their areas, to deal with listed buildings and so on have received a great deal of debate and discussion in both Houses and outside. We have now obtained the agreement of those concerned to a great extent—I will not say full agreement, but to a great extent there is consensus on what we now have in the Bill after Amendments in another place.
The functions of preservation and conservation exercised by local authorities can be divided into four. First, listed building control; second, building preservation notices; third, designation of


conservation areas; fourth, control of unlisted buildings in conservation areas.
As the House will know, planning consent for the demolition, alteration or extension of a listed building may not be granted by the local planning authority until it has notified the Secretary of State of the intentions concerning demolition, alteration or extension and has given the Secretary of State an opportunity to call in the application. That is one major function.
I mentioned secondly the building preservation notices. These are the notices which give the building temporary protection while the Secretary of State considers whether it should be added permanently to the listed buildings which are of special arehitectural or historic interest.
Third, there is the designation of conservation areas. A local planning authority must decide which parts of its area or areas are of special arehitectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance, and it can then designate those areas as conservation areas. That is the third important function.
The fourth function, which was added fairly recently in this Parliament is the control of unlisted buildings in a conservation area. Where a local authority is convinced that there is a square, a terrace of houses or a particular building which does not meet the qualifications of a listed building but is part and pareel of the character of a conservation area, it may by direction bring the demolition of it within control so that if the owner wishes to demolish he will get consent only on the grounds for which consent would be given for demolition of a listed building.
The Bill as originally presented to the House placed all these functions with the district planning authorities. We thought that those functions went with the preparation of local plans and the exercise of development control which are in the hands of the district planning authority. The Amendments, and particularly new paragraph 45 of Amendment No. 309 provide that certain of these powers should be available also to county planning authorities. They provide that the county planning authorities may have concurrent powers with the district planning authorities to serve

building preservation notices—that is Amendment No. 284—to designate conservation areas—that is Amendments Nos. 302 to 305—and make directions bringing within listed building control the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas—that is new paragraph 45 in Amendment No. 309.
The Amendments do not affect the provisions in the Bill for the exercise of listed building control and development control whether it is within or outside the conservation area. That will remain, as in the Bill, a function exerciseable by the district planning authorities. I can perhaps best express it in this way. There will be concurrent powers to set the conservation in motion, to list a building, to designate a conservation area, to make directions to preserve buildings within a conservation area and to serve building preservation notices. The authorities which spark off the conservation or preservation will have concurrent powers, county and district. The actual management, whether of listed buildings or of a conservation area, will remain in the hands of the district planning authority.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There seems to be confusion here. Some local authorities have the impression that the result of the Amendments is to give exclusive powers to the county council to serve building preservation notices, and that that power has gone from the district council, but the Minister says that is not so.

Mr. Page: It is not so. I have written to the Secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations explaining this to him and pointing out that the phrase about which he was worried was removed because it was superfluous. Elsewhere in these provisions it is clear that the powers are concurrent. We have taken nothing away from the district authorities; we have merely given to the county planning authorities the power to work alongside the district planning authorities or to carry out the same functions in starting the preservation or conservation.
6.0 p.m.
To explain the distinction, let us assume a conservation area in which a terrace has been designated. As I said, the houses there would have the same protection as if they were listed buildings.
The district or the county can make that designation, but once it is made, if any owners of those buildings want to knock them down, the application is made to the district. If it is a county matter or a national park matter, it would move up the scale in the same way as any other application to a district planning authority.
These Amendments would give the counties that right to start the preservation procedure concurrently with the district planning authorities, but to leave with the planning authorities the sole function of management of those areas. This is why I say that we go further from these separate Amendments and into the depths of Amendment No. 309, which deals with many other things as well.
The provisions in paragraphs 46 and 47 of Amendment No. 309 bear on the arrangements that a district planning authority might make to obtain the specialist advice it needs to carry out its functions in regard to conservation and listed building matters. This is an important point, on which we eventually got agreement between all those concerned.
By means of these new paragraphs, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct district planning authorities to submit for his approval the arrangements which they propose to make to obtain specialist advice in connection with listed building control and designation of conservation areas and their functions in relation to the control of the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas. They will be obliged to submit these arrangements to the Secretary of State, and, if he is not satisfied with them, he is given power to direct the authority —the district planning authority—either to use the staff of another authority, which it could do under Clause 111, or to arrange for the discharge of its functions by another authority under Clause 100.
This is a power which is quite unique in the Bill. It is the sort of power which I would describe as being contrary to the spirit of the Bill and not in line with the requirements of the Bill, but its very uniqueness shows the importance which we attribute to the functions of conservation and preservation. I hope

that on those grounds it will be accepted by the House.
Amendment No. 309 deals not only with what I was talking about—the arrangements for obtaining advice by the district planning authorities—but with other matters entirely unrelated. The Amendment tries to fulfil the intention to bring back into Schedule 16 all the adaptations of enactments relating to planning, and it achieves this by introducing a new Part II to Schedule 16 and deleting these matters from Schedule 29.
It brings into Part II the provisions relating to four Acts—the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946, the Land Compensation Act, 1961, the New Towns Act, 1965, and the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1972. I need not go through the details of this, because there is very little new. There is nothing new at all so far as the New Towns Act is concerned—that is entirely as it left this House—and in the other cases it is merely a matter of removing certain ambiguities and improving the presentation of the Schedule.
This is quite outside the other matters which we have discussed—the important matters of conservation and preservation functions. I hope that the House will accept this as we have now presented it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Again, we must all be grateful to the Minister for explaining what is, on the face of it, a fairly complicated set of provisions. It is true that some local authorities were concerned about the implications of some of these changes and the House should give it proper thought.
This is an area of considerable, and, we hope, increasing, importance. Every effort is being made, with Government approval, to encourage the local authorities in the districts to take a special interest in these matters—particularly building preservation, conservation areas and so on. Our object is to try to get as wide an interest in the locality as possible and to see that it is expressed in some tangible way.
Therefore, having said that we were anxious that local areas should take an active interest, it is odd, at first sight, that that desire should be to some extent contradicted by widening the scope of


authority. Many representations were made when this matter was discussed earlier about whether or not it was desirable that the county authority, perhaps with a call on certain levels of expertise, should be brought in, rather than relying entirely on the purely local body which might not have that expertise. This was widely felt, but as the Minister explained, a new and rather exceptional provision has been made in these Amendments to enable him to ensure that the district authority should have adequate expert advice.
It is therefore understandable that local authorities should say, "If you are taking this power to require the district authority to prove that it has an adequate call upon expert advice, why do you also provide for concurrent powers?" As we have this special provision, to which we take no exception—we think that it is a wise, although unusual, provision—does the Minister feel that we need in addition the provision of concurrent powers?
I do not want to put it too high but some local authorities are concerned lest the effect of this provision will be for them to lose the expertise they may already have, because when talking about district authorities we are in some cases talking about very well established and large authorities with a very wide range of expertise, although I freely admit that we are also talking of authorities which have far less expertise in this connection.
Therefore, before we leave this set of what I believe to be important Lords Amendments it would be helpful if the Minister were to say a further word as to whether in all circumstances he needs to duplicate, as it were, his assurances and reassurances in this way; and whether it would not have been adequate now to leave it with the special powers he has taken under Lords Amendment No. 309.

Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House. As the hon. Gentleman will recollect, my own view at the outset was that listed building control and the creation of a conservation area and its control were so closely related to the powers we have given to the district planning authorities to draw the development plan of their area, or to control its planning, that it should be within their hands. But I have been convinced in

listening to arguments inside and outside both Houses that there is a case for saying that a conservation area or a listed building is not the preserve of a district.
Perhaps one can use the simile of the green belt. We take the green belt to be a national matter, and control of the area is done by the central Government. I do not go so far as to say that conservation areas and listed buildings should be controlled nationally, though they are certainly national assets, but they are county assets as much as assets of the districts within those counties. To that extent I am now convinced that we should recognise that position by giving the county a concurrent power of creation.
I think that this provision is more an in terrorem than something to be used in practice. The very fact that the county will have this power will make the district think that it ought not to develop an area which should be a conservation area; that it ought to preserve it, or it may have the county using the powers it has. I believe that it will be a very strange occasion when the county has to step in and preserve this sort of national asset. I am sure that districts will exercise their powers, but we should also recognise that these things are assets for an area of population wider than just that of the district.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 181

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 316, in page 133, line 16, leave out "and" and insert:
(b) amendments extending the powers of parish and community councils in relation to parking places so as to empower them to provide, maintain, and regulate the use of, off-street parking places for all classes of vehicles, as well as parking places for bicycles and motor cycles, and

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient with this Amendment to take Lords Amendments Nos. 318, 319 and 320.
These Amendments provide a welcome extension, as I believe, of the function of parish and community councils. Their germ appeared in Standing Committee through the agency of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison). It was tended further by the noble Lady, Baroness Phillips, in another place and it has now come into the sunshine in the form of these Amendments.
6.15 p.m.
The new powers to be conferred on parish and community councils will allow them to provide and operate off-street car parks but not, of course, on-street parking facilities. These powers will be exercisable subject to the continuing consent of the county council. The form of control will be substantially the same as that to be exercised over the district council's parking powers, except that there will be no provision for appeal to the Secretary of State such as district councils have. Copies of applications for consent will have to be sent to the district council, which may comment upon them. This will make sure that the district council is aware of proposals which might require its approval as planning authority.
Under the existing powers of Section 46 of the 1967 Act over cycle parks, regulation is by means of byelaws subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State. Regulation of the parish car parks will be by a parking place order under Section 31 of the Act rather than by byelaws, and the order will be subject to county council consent. We feel that it would be both unwieldy and unnecessary to have both the county councils and the Secretary of State giving consent. The powers of Section 31(1) will allow the parish and community councils to make a more flexible, though standardised, parking place order setting out the terms of use. This will be subject to county council consent alone. In addition, the county council will be able to make orders in respect of parish or community car parks, as in the case of district car parks.
It was also accepted in another place that the power was intended to provide modest parking facilities, mainly on amenity grounds—that is, as an alterna

tive to grass verges and village greens or, possibly, at the back of parish halls, or such places as that. The concept of "modest" parking facilities is extremely difficult to draft and incorporate satisfactorily in the relevant provisions of the Bill. But the limited resources of parish councils and the provisions for county council control together should be adequate safeguards. We have provided that, as in the case of district councils' proposals, the county may refuse or give consent subject to conditions or modifications.
District councils as local planning authorities would be required to give planning consent to any parish car parks which represented substantial development. The reason for requiring the parish or community council to send copies of all applications for consent to the district council as well as to the county council, and for the county council to consider any representations made to it by the district before arriving at a decision, is to avoid the confusion which might occur if the statutory consent and the planning permission were sought from the two different authorities independently.
What I have said so far relates to Lords Amendments Nos. 316 and 318. Nos. 319 and 320 are consequential upon them.
As I entered my political life as a parish councillor some 18 years ago, and later became the vice-chairman of that parish council, and as the person who nominated me then was chairman of the local Labour Party—so it was really very much an all-party parish council—I think it is important that we should have this small but significant extension of parish council powers—powers which we did not have when I was on the parish council and which parish councils do not have today, a lack that proved embarrassing in involved wrangles with the rural district council to provide a very modest car park indeed. I feel that this is a step forward and that the Bill will be improved by these Amendments.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: We do not disagree with parishes having increased powers. The Minister said that he welcomed this extension of the powers of parish councils, yet that welcome in itself shows a strange dichotomy. The


Government were first of all very intransigent about the powers of the county council over all traffic matters, and in particular over car parking matters. They now say that counties shall have these powers and they also increase the powers of the parishes, yet in the debate in another place the Government seemed to show a very strange reluctance to give sufficient powers to the district councils in respect of off-street parking facilities.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) fought a valiant battle in Committee and certain undertakings were given by the Government to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman was told that the Government would consider concurrent powers between county and district councils. I doubt whether "concurrent powers" means, in the ordinary sense of the meaning of "concurrent" that the district can go ahead independently of the county or the county independently of the district. However, there is a proposed extension of the powers of a parish council to provide general car parking facilities.
I can see some difficulties arising from the Amendment. Even though county councils have overall powers over parishes and their applications to provide car parks, it may be that the county councils will bypass their own responsibilities for the provision of car parks by saying that the burden falls upon the parishes.
I have in mind particularly holiday-type parishes—for example, seaside and countryside parishes—which would not need car parking facilities for the requirements of the inhabitants but which, because of a sudden influx of population at holiday times and the need to survive as a community will need to provide parking facilities for others. Very typical are fishing villages and seaside resorts. For example, the village which has a nice beach within its area or which has adjacent woods does not need a car park for its inhabitants, who can conveniently park their cars within the curtilage of their own premises. However, because of the influx of visitors such villages will need to provide a car park. That seems to be the job not of the parish council but of the county council or the district council. It is the district and the county which attract tourists to the area—in particular.

the district—and it would be the district's function to provide off-street parking facilities. Districts should not throw the burden on a parish. Although the provision of a car park is not a great financial burden to a county or district, it can be a sizeable burden for a parish which can levy only a limited rate.
It is grossly unfair that a parish should have placed upon it the burden of providing facilities not for its inhabitants but for protection from visitors who want to take advantage of the lovely rural scenery or the seaside fishing village or whatever it may be. I am not against the power being given to parishes, but I fear that county councils will throw their burden on to the parishes.
I cannot understand—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will explain further—that on the one hand the Government look to the county councils for overall traffic planning, roads, car parks, etc., and yet seek to deny equivalent and proper powers being granted to the district councils. The Government are prepared to give such powers to the smallest units of local government yet they deny such powers to a district council, a sizeable authority.
I assure the Government that we will not seek to divide the House, but the Amendment seems a strange and wide departure from what the Government were originally saying, that all road, traffic and car parking powers should belong to the county council in the interests of good planning. Admittedly the plans will have to go to the county council, but I fear that the county council could evade its own responsibilities, particularly in tourist areas, and place the burden of the provision of car parks not upon itself or the district, but upon parishioners. It is a burden that the inhabitants of the parish should not have to bear, as they are not providing facilities for their own cars.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I agree with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). I am not happy about the Amendments. It is not that I am against parish councils having the right to provide off-street parking, but I protest against the Government's treatment of parish councils in giving them this right compared with their treatment of the district councils.
For my sins, I served on the Standing Committee for many a long and weary day. I made it clear that I was unhappy about car parking. I made it clear that there should be concurrent powers between the district and metropolitan councils and that if a pledge to that effect was not forthcoming I should vote against the Government in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace, who at that time was in the Department of the Environment, said:
Although I still believe that the concept of a county transportation plan is right, I say at once that I think those districts should have the powers to provide off-street parking. I make that absolutely clear. We will introduce Amendments to do that. Although I have said that it will be within the county transportation plan. I go even further than I went before. If the district should feel that it is being oppressed unreasonably by the county, we will also provide for an appeal direct to the Secretary of State. I think this answers any possible doubt that my hon. Friends may have.
I then asked my hon. Friend whether the district council and the county council would have concurrent powers, and whether the county council could control the number of car parking places that the district councils could provide. My hon. Friend, referring to the district councils, said:
They will have concurrent powers, not only to provide off-street car parking, but to make arrangements for others to provide it …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th February, 1972, c. 2125–28.]
The general view of most hon. Members who listened to that debate was that district councils would have direct responsibility for the provision of off-street car parking, without being subject to the permission of the county council. I regret to say that that has not happened.
Dudley Council, which is anxious about the matter, was satisfied with the promises given in Standing Committee D, but today it is disillusioned with what the Government have done. It is an issue of great importance to Dudley, because the council has built or planned a shopping precinct which has been successful. The great asset of the precinct is the provision of adjacent free car parking. The council now sees that, because of the Bill, the whole situation could be jeopardised. I do not blame my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench today but I feel, along with others of my hon. Friends

who feel strongly about the matter, that I was conned by a promise made in Committee which has not been fulfilled.
If the Opposition decide to press the Amendment to a vote, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government to show my disgust at the way in which district councils such as Dudley have been treated under the Bill.

Mr. Speed: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply briefly to the arguments that have been raised. First, I appreciate the long and strong campaign which has been mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), not least because I was the Whip in Standing Committee D when he was putting his points of view very strongly. My hon. Friend has since spoken to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself about the matter. If my hon. Friend feels that the Bill falls short of what he, Dudley Council and his constituents required, he can rest assured that it is not through any lack of his own efforts. My hon. Friend has consistently put forward his constituents' view with great vigour.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend feels that he was misled in Committee. My hon. Friend read what was said in Committee, when my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary said that there would be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. If there is a right of appeal it must follow ipso facto that there is a right of appeal against some form of control.
The district councils are having powers granted to them to provide off-street car parking, but there could be a situation confronting the metropolitan or non-metropolitan counties, which will be responsible for overall transportation, that the over-vigorous enthusiasm of district councils for car parking could prejudice their plans.
I will not go through all the arguments again, because my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary outlined in Committee the major changes in transportation policy which are likely to take place regarding local authorities. I will give one hypothetical example, not taking Dudley or any other district council. If a district council wishes to spend considerable sums of money on providing massive free off-street car parking facilities to attract people to the shops in the town, that is


fine, but what happens about all the roads leading to that shopping centre which may well be in areas completely divorced from the district? It is the metropolitan county or the county council that has to provide those roads and cope with the traffic implications of the enormous free car parking facilities which have been provided. Such a situation, although it may be good for the shopkeepers, might jeopardise and throw into chaos all the transportation plans of the highway authority.

6.30 p.m.
Increasingly throughout the country the major conurbations are conducting transportation studies involving such sophisticated matters as bus lanes, private car parking, the question whether there should be more road improvements, the whole question of passenger transport authorities, and the links between private and public transport. An authority which is responsible for transportation in its widest sense could have its transportation policies jeopardised by off-street parking provided by another authority.
I am sure that the right of appeal by district councils to the Secretary of State will at least meet the point if district councils feel aggrieved by any power that the highway authority may exercise over them.

Mr. Montgomery: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and that is not in dispute. I am complaining about the pledge which was given by the then Under-Secretary in Committee that the Government would introduce Amendments and also the clear pledge given in Committee that concurrent powers would be given. This has not been done.

Mr. Speed: I have explained it to my hon. Friend. If he feels that he was misled, or if he has misunderstood the situation, I apologise. It is implicit that, if there are appeals, the appeals must be against control from somebody. Perhaps it turns on the use of the word "concurrent". I shall not get into an argument about semantics. It was implicit in what my hon. Friend who is now the Minister for Aerospace said in Committee that, as there was a right of appeal, it must be a right of appeal against control

from another authority. I again apologise to my hon. Friend and his constituents if they feel that they were misled.
I could not understand what the objections of the hon. Member for Widness (Mr. Oakes) were. I understand his point of view about the district councils, and it is largely the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill. Therefore, the remarks I have made to my hon. Friend are directed to the hon. Gentleman as well.
The hon. Member for Widnes talked about parish councils being forced by county councils to provide car parks in such places as fishing villages, but he almost knocked that argument down by admitting that those villages would be part of district or county councils. It was the National Association of Parish Councils which pressed for the Amendment.
In many cases there will be the same people involved, certainly at officer level, on the new authorities. If we have any respect for or faith in the new local government set-up, we should not believe that county councils or district councils will act so irresponsibly as to say "You may need a massive car park costing thousands of pounds. You have the power to do it. You do it." I do not believe that that situation will arise.
There have been many examples where great difficulties have occurred in coping with parking problems in a small village, parking which may or may not be connected with tourism. This is a useful extension of the powers of parish councils. It is something that the parish councils want and now have and are delighted about. Where the sorts of problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned arise and where car parking is needed for visitors on a much wider scale than a parish council could afford, I have no doubt that either the district or the county will do what should be done, because districts and counties will in future be responsible units of local government as they have been in the past. I therefore again urge the House to accept the Lords Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 182

LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES AND MAIN- TENANCE POWERS OF DISTRICT COUNCILS

Lords Amendment: No. 321, in page 135, leave out lines 36 to 47 and insert:
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations empower district councils, in relation to highways in respect of which their powers of maintenance under subsection (2) above are exercisable, to exercise subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the regulations such additional powers as appear to him—

(a)to be appropriate to supplement powers of maintenance; and
(b) to correspond to powers exercisable in relation to highways by highway authorities;


and accordingly in this section (other than this subsection), in Schedule 20 to this Act and in any other enactment referring to the powers of district councils under subsection (2) above, the expressions "maintenance" and "maintain", where used with respect to the powers of district councils under subsection (2) above, shall be construed as extending to the carrying out of operations in the exercise of powers conferred on district councils by regulations under this subsection; and a statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment substitutes a new subsection for subsection (7) of the Clause. Both the present and the proposed new subsection relate to the powers of district councils to undertake the maintenance of unclassified urban roads as defined in subsection (8) of the Clause.
The new subsection (7) provides that regulations made by the Secretary of State may empower district councils to exercise powers which appropriately supplement powers of maintenance and which correspond to powers exercisable in relation to highways by highway authorities.
The subsection provides also that the expressions "maintenance" and "maintain", when used in relation to the powers of district councils to maintain unclassified urban roads, shall include operations which district councils are entitled to carry out under regulations made by the Secretary of State. Regulations made under the subsection by the Secretary of

State are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Amendment is necessary to ensure that district councils have the powers to carry out all the maintenance functions which they may be entitled to exercise under regulations made by the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State has power to limit those powers appropriately. In other words, the Amendment enables the Secretary of State slightly to extend the terms "maintenance" and "maintain" so that they do not simply cover literally filling in potholes, although I assure the House that land acquisition is certainly not involved. It is an extension so as to cover rather more than the narrow concept of "maintenance" might imply. It is of fairly small import, but it gives the district councils that will have these powers for urban unclassified roads a slightly more interesting, a slightly more commonsense and a slightly more cost-effective way of doing their job of maintenance.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 184

COMMONS

Lords Amendment: No. 324, in page 138, line 5, after "council" insert:
(b) if the land is in a London borough, the council of that borough

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (2) of the Clause amends the Commons Registration Act, 1965, so as to vest unclaimed town or village greens sometimes in the parish or community council and sometimes in the district council. As it stands, the wording does not cover the case of unclaimed town or village greens in greater London. I suppose there are some greens in that category. We should cover the position in case there are. The Amendment secures that these will vest in the council of the appropriate London borough.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 325. After Clause 185, in page 140, line 7, insert:

New Clause H

ORDNANCE SURVEY

H.—(1) In its application outside Greater London, the Ordnance Survey Act 1841 (in this section referred to as "the 1841 Act") shall have effect subject to the following modifications.

(2) An application under section 1 of the 1841 Act shall be sent to the proper officer of either a county council or a district council and, where such an application is made, the function of appointing a person to assist in examing, ascertaining and marking out reputed boundaries shall be exercisable by the council to whose proper officer the application was sent.

(3) The newspapers in which copies of an application under section 1 of the 1841 Act are to be inserted shall be those circulating in the area of the council to whose proper officer the application was sent.

(4) References, in whatever terms, in the 1841 Act—

(a) to the justices by whom a person is appointed under section 1 of that Act shall be construed as references to the county council or the district council, as the case may require, and
(b) to the clerk of the peace for a county shall be construed as references to the proper officer of the county council or the district council as the case may require.

(5) Without prejudice to section 15 of the 1841 Act (which among other things extends the meaning of the word "county" in that Act) references in that Act to a county include references to any local government area within the meaning of this Act.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment deals with the composition of the Ordnance Survey. The Ordnance Survey Act, 1841, provides for all public boundaries to be ascertained for publication purposes by Ordnance Survey. Section 1 of the 1841 Act empowered justices in quarter sessions, on the application of the Ordnance Survey to the clerk of the peace, to appoint fit and proper persons as meresmen to ensure the adoption of the correct boundary. We learnt in the course of the Bill that there are such things as meresmen and that they are not mere men. They are the people appointed by the justices to measure the boundaries.
As a result of the Courts Act, 1971, the function performed by the clerk of the peace was transferred to the clerk of the county council. Now that we shall not have clerks of county councils because there is no statutory obligation to appoint them we must adjust the provisions. We cannot have a county appointing meresmen for the districts, so this Amendment provides that the proper officer shall make the application for the appointment of these meresmen.
Subsection (4) provides that all references in the 1841 Act to justices appointing meresmen under Section 1 should be taken as references to the county or district council, as appropriate, and that references to the clerk of the peace for a county should be taken as references to the proper officer of the county or district council, as appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 188

RESERVE POWERS OF COUNTY COUNCILS IN RELATION TO HOUSING

Lords Amendment: No. 327, in page 142, line 7, after "council" insert "or councils".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 328 and 329.

Mr. Speed: Lords Amendments Nos. 327 and 328 are drafting Amendments but Lords Amendment No. 329 is slightly more substantial and has been inserted at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations. It will place beyond doubt that districts will be fully consulted by the Secretary of State in the exercising of reserve housing powers. We always undertook that there would be such consultations, but the Amendment puts the undertaking on a statutory footing.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 330, in page 142, line 44, at end insert:
(1A) In a non-metropolitan county each district council and the county council shall from time to time consult together with respect to the nature and extent of the accommodation needed for people who by reason of infirmity or disability (whether arising from age or otherwise) are in need of accommodation of a special character.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was moved by my noble Friend Lord Aberdare on Report in another place as a manuscript Amendment to meet concern underlying an Amendment moved by Lady Serota, the purpose of which was to ensure full consultation and collaboration between county councils, which have responsibilities for social services and welfare, and district councils, with their housing responsibilities outside the metropolitan areas. In the metropolitan areas responsibilities for both functions will lie with the district councils. It did not go as far as Lady Serota and no doubt others would have liked. It covers the elderly and disabled but there is no specific reference to the homeless. We feel that housing and the homeless are primarily responsibilities of housing authorities. Nevertheless, this is a small and useful Amendment which will ensure that these two authorities consult each other from time to time. I have no doubt that most of them would have done so anyhow, but it is now at least enshrined in legislation.

Mr. Oakes: This is a small but useful Amendment, but it shows the root of the fault of the Bill in separating housing from social services within the Bill. I asked the Minister whether, when he says that in a non-metropolitan county each district council and the county council shall from time to time consult together, he means each district council and the county council or each district council and other district councils together shall consult. The wording seems to be a little loose.
Furthermore, when he says "consult", does he mean at officer level or member

level, or are there to be consultations via, say, the social services committees which are set up within each area under the Social Services Act, which would seem to have far more definite powers in respect of social services, certainly than would district councils?
I welcome the Amendment, but it reveals one of the basic faults in the Bill.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Speed: If I may reply, with the leave of the House, the question whether it is at officer level or member level must be a matter for each council to decide. I would expect it to be at both, as would obviously be the most useful way.
As for the wording, I understand that the clear intention is that consultations should take place with each district council, which is the housing authority and the county council, which covers social services and welfare. That is what the consultation will be about on this Clause. It is between housing and social service authorities.
The hon. Member has made a point about the division of these responsibilities, but we have been into those matters and it would not be appropriate to go through them again now.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 190

POLICE

Lords Amendment: No. 335, in page 144, line 8, leave out from "section" to end of line 12.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): This is a drafting Amendment, the effect of which is to ensure that general procedural requirements relating to voting, the recording of the names of those present and the recording of the proceedings and other procedural matters shall apply to meetings of a county police authority in the same way as to meetings of all local authority committees.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 336, after Clause 193, in page 149, line 6, at end insert:

New Clause I

POWER TO CONFER ON DISTRICT COUNCILS IN WALES CERTAIN FUNCTIONS RELAT- ING TO AGRICULTURE

"I.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly may make an order conferring on the council of a district in Wales, with respect to the district, the functions which, apart from the order, would be exercisable by the county council under sections 4 and 5 of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act 1928 (cold and chemical storage of eggs in registered premises).

(2) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly may make an order imposing on the council of a district in Wales, with respect to the district, the duty which, apart from the order, would be imposed on the county council by section 67 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (enforcement of provisions of that Act relating to fertilisers and feeding stuffs).

(3) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may make an order imposing on the council of a district in Wales, with respect to the district, the duty which, apart from the order, would be imposed on the county council by section 108(8) of the Medicines Act 1968 (enforcement of certain provisions made by or under that Act).

(4) If and so long as an order under subsection (1), subsection (2) or subsection (3) above confers any functions or imposes any duty on a district council in Wales, references in the enactment or enactments to which the order relates—

(a) to the county council shall be construed as including references to that district council, and
(b) to the area of the county (however expressed) shall he construed, in relation to the council of the county in which the district is situated, as references to the area of the county exclusive of that district.

(5) The power to make an order—

(a) under subsection (1) above conferring functions on a district council in Wales, or
(b) under subsection (2) or subsection (3) above imposing a duty on a district council in Wales,

shall cease to be exercisable on 1st April, 1974, but an order made under any of those subsections may be revoked at any time after that date, by a further order made under the same subsection.

(6) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1), subsection (2) or subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) Notwithstanding anything in section 5 of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act 1928, in respect of any period during which, by virtue of an order under subsection (1) above, functions under sections 4 and 5 of that Act are conferred an the council

of a district in Wales, any expenses incurred under that Act by the council of the county in which that district is situated shall be treated as special expenses chargeable only on the remainder of the county.

(8) In any case where, by virtue of an order under subsection (1), subsection (2) or subsection (3) above revoking a previous order under that subsection, functions conferred or a duty imposed by that previous order on a district council in Wales cease to be so conferred or imposed, anything done before the date on which the order takes effect by, to or before the district council shall have effect for the purposes of the enactment or enactments to which the order relates as if done by, to or before the county council by whom those functions become exercisable on that date or, as the case may be, on whom that duty is imposed on that date; and any proceedings under that enactment or those enactments which on that date were pending by or against the district council may be continued accordingly by or against the county council."

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords on the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 457.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Under Clauses 192(3) and 194(3), the appropriate Ministers may, by order at any time before 1st April, 1974, designate a Welsh district council as a food and drugs authority and weights and measures authority respectively. No such corresponding provision has been made in respect of functions concerned with fertilisers and feeding stuffs, medicated feeding stuffs, the marking of preserved eggs and the cold and chemical storage of eggs. The purpose and effect of these Amendments is to make such provision so that for consistency these closely allied consumer protection functions may be similarly allocated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 194

LOCAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 337, in page 149, line 7, leave out "this section" and insert "subsections (2) to (4) below".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 338 and 339.

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 337 is a purely drafting Amendment. Amendment No. 338 is also a drafting Amendment but it is necessary in this case for the sake of completeness to include in the "without prejudice" provisions in the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, a reference to Section 5 of the London Government Act, 1963, which provides for the delegation of functions of greater London.
Amendment No. 339 deals with the Trade Descriptions Act. 1972. That was an Act which extended the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, to require certain names and marks applying to imported goods to be accompanied by an indication of origin. The Trade Descriptions Act, 1972, is also enforced by local weights and measures authorities and it is therefore necessary to include a reference to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 340, in page 150, line 15, at end insert:
(8) A local weights and measures authority may make, or assist in the making of, arrangements to provide advice to or for the benefit of consumers of goods and services within the area of the authority.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I appear again, as I have been accused of appearing during previous debates on Lords Amendments, in the rôle of St. Paul. I have been converted in this case. An identical Amendment was discussed in Committee in this House and on Government advice it was withdrawn. I argued then that the Amendment was unnecessary because local authorities could already use the free penny rate for this purpose of giving advice for the future to consumers of goods. I also suggested that the consumer advisory services could be provided by weights and measures authorities under Clause 109, which enables local authorities to do anything calculated to facilitate or to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of their functions.
I now think it right, however, to give a specific power to local authorities, and

particularly to the weights and measures departments of local authorities, to make or assist in making arrangements for the provision of advice to consumers. At present local authorities wishing to do this must rely primarily on the old free penny or, as it is now, the free two new pence. However, I recognise that there is a growing need for consumer advice and a growing willingness for local authorities to help in this respect.
Although we have some 500 citizens advice bureaux and some local authorities are already active in this sphere in assisting citizens advice bureaux and in setting up their own consumer advice, nevertheless weights and measures authorities are well placed to assist consumers who need advice and to meet that need. A number of local authorities provide it. Sheffield finances its service from its free penny rate and in the future it will be a free two new pence rate.
In general, it is the citizens advice bureau which is used as the main agency for this purpose. I am left in no doubt, after looking at this matter again, following the debate on it on the earlier stages of the Bill, that I was wrong in not conceding at that time that there should be a statutory power in the Bill. I was wrong in saying that local authorities should be obliged to use their free penny or free two new pence. I think it is right to give a statutory power and to encourage them by this to help support the citizens advice bureaux or set up their own direct means of consumer advice.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 195

PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN PASSENGER TRANSPORT AREAS

Lords Amendment: No. 342, in page 150, line 44, at end insert:
and in section 16(1) of the Finance Act 1970 (exclusion of amounts precepted under section 13 of the Transport Act 1968 and certain grants in computing profits chargeable to corporation tax of a Passenger Transport Executive or the London Transport Executive) at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be added the words "and, in any case where that section has effect as set out in Part II of Schedule 24 to the Local Government Act 1972, any grants made to such Executives under that section".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a rather interesting little Amendment and I ought to tell the House what it is about. Section 13 of the Transport Act, 1968, gives power to a passenger transport authority to issue precepts on its constituent councils, which in turn must pay the amount due from them to the passenger transport executive. Section 16(1) of the Finance Act, 1970, provides that such precept income shall not be chargeable to corporation tax in the hands of the passenger transport executive.
Under Clause 195 the four existing and two new passenger transport areas will all be coterminous with the relevant metropolitan county. The power to precept will, therefore, be inappropriate as the metropolitan county council is the only constituent authority and is itself the passenger transport authority. Therefore, paragraph 12 in Part II of Schedule 24 provides a new Section 13 in these circumstances which replaces the precepting power by giving the authority power to make grants to the passenger transport executive. This is precisely the same power as was provided in the Transport (London) Act, 1969, for the Greater London Council/London Transport Executive situation; but whereas those grants were specifically exempted under Section 16(1) of the Finance Act, 1970, the ones which the new metropolitan county councils will be making to the passenger transport executive are not, and that would be wrong. The Amendment therefore brings the new grants into line with the London situation by excluding them from profits chargeable to corporation tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 197

LICENSING: LICENSED PREMISES, CINEMAS, THEATRES AND REFRESHMENT HOUSES

Lords Amendment: No. 343, in page 153, line 41, after "in" insert "Part I of".

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendments Nos. 344, 349 and 633.

Mr. Carlisle: The effect of these Amendments is to provide a right of appeal to the Crown Court for a person aggrieved by a licensing authority's refusal to grant, renew or transfer a licence under the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Act, 1926, or by the terms, conditions and restrictions imposed or by the revocation of a licence.
These Amendments meet points raised by the Opposition in another place. The appeal provisions are modelled on those in the London Government Act, 1963, except that the appeal will lie direct to the Crown Court. A right to appeal is desirable in itself, and it is all the more desirable after reorganisation; it is desirable that there should be the right of appeal from the local authority's decision.
The Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Act, 1926, deals with all applications in parts of Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Kent within 20 miles of the City of London or the City of Westminster, whichever is the nearer.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 199

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS (ENGLAND)

Lords Amendment: No. 350, in page 156, line 15, leave out from first "councils" to "and" in line 17 and insert:
the Greater London Council, London borough councils, district councils, the Common Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss also Lords Amendments Nos. 351 to 357?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Page: The effect of Amendment No. 350 is to exclude parish councils from authorities competent to maintain and assist museums and to deal with certain


anomalies, namely, the previous omission of the Greater London Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. This is against the general trend of the Bill in giving powers to parish councils. But parishes do not have statutory powers to provide libraries. I think it should follow from that that they should not have statutory powers to provide museums or art galleries.
There is no doubt that there is an increasing requirement for high and effective standards and for staffing of museums and galleries beyond the resources of any parish council, and to retain the existing law would lead to fruitless applications to the Secretary of State from time to time for permission to provide museums and art galleries by the parish. This merely means that the statutory power is removed. The parish can still, if it sees fit, use its free two new pence in providing a library, a museum or an art gallery, but I feel that the trend is that proper staffing of those facilities is now required and that is beyond the resources of the parish.
Amendment No. 352 is consequential, by removing the power from the community councils in Wales.
Amendment Nos. 353 and 354 are consequential.
I come to Amendment No. 355. By the Bill, upon the council of a district in Wales ceasing to be a library authority under the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964, which may be by voluntary relinquishment or failure to carry out its duties, its library officers, assets and liabilities will be transferred to the county council or joint board assuming the functions previously exercised by it.
The effect of the Amendment is to make that provision applicable in a case in which the council of a district in Wales loses its function as a library authority not by voluntary relinquishment or failure to carry out its duties but is deprived of the function for the purpose of improving the library facilities in the area as a whole.
The Amendment has the further effect of making applicable to transferred officers the provisions of the 1964 Act with respect to conditions of employment, compensation, superannuation and other benefits. Thus, by the operation of these

provisions no staff will suffer, but one hopes that the library facilities of the area will be improved.

7.0 p.m.
Amendment No. 356 removes certain words which are not required because the Interpretation Act, 1889, together with Clause 258, provides the necessary wording.
Amendment No. 357 provides a new paragraph (f) to enable an authority to establish a fund for the purchase of objects for exhibition in a museum or art gallery before it is actually in being. It is extraordinary that a fund could not be set up in order to start a museum or art gallery; it could be set up only after the museum or art gallery had started. This is a nonsense, and we have put it right by the new paragraph (f).
There are certain other consequential changes, for example, paragraph (h). Under that part of the 1964 Act which is to cease to have effect, the expenses of a county council related to the provision and maintenance of a museum or art gallery, in respect of contributions towards expenses incurred by others in so doing, or in providing advisory or other services or financial assistance for the benefit of a museum or art gallery may not be charged on the area of any local authority within the county which itself maintains a museum or art gallery. That is the law as it stands at present.
The House will recall that we had a similar argument yesterday when we used swimming pools as an example. The law here says that, if an existing district has provided its own museum or art gallery, it shall not be charged for the provision of those services elsewhere by the county. This could result in a state of affairs in which an area could benefit from the service provided by the county without itself having to contribute to the cost even where the provision made by the local authority in that area was of little significance. The district may have set up a footling little art gallery or a miserable little museum and then claim that it need not contribute in any way from the rates to a museum or art gallery set up for the whole county, well staffed, well managed, and providing facilities for the whole county. We should regard that as unfair, and we seek by this Amendment to repeal the existing law in that respect.
New paragraph (i) of Amendment. No. 357 ensures that the Isles of Scilly are equated to a non-metropolitan county in this respect.
The effect of new paragraph (j) is to remove the limits imposed under the 1964 Act on the maximum annual sum which may be paid by a local authority into its own fund and on the maximum total amount which may be in the fund at any time. Having given local authorities power to set up these funds, now both for the provision and for the maintenance of their museums and galleries, we think it right that they should have freedom to decide what they put into the funds and how much the amount shall be at any one time.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 203

CHARITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 361, in page 159, line 23, at beginning insert:
Subject to subsection (2A) below

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 363. No. 361 is merely a paving Amendment for No. 363.
The purpose of Amendment No. 363 is to insert a new subsection in the Clause dealing with the vesting of property and other rights of local authorities in charities. In its present unamended form, the Clause provides for property vested in a county council to vest in the council of the new county and for property vested in a borough council to vest in the parish council or, if there be no such parish council, in the district council.
The new subsection varies this provision in the case of educational charities, that is, those charities on the register of charities maintained by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales. It will provide that property and other rights in such a charity shall vest in the new local

education authority for the area. Thus, the general rule of their moving to the new county or to the parish or new district under the Bill as it stands will be altered in that case. The object is simply to ensure that, where charity property is vested in the local education authority as such, it will devolve on the new education authority for the area and not on any other local authority exercising functions in that area.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 205

LOCAL LAND CHARGES

Lords Amendment: No. 369, in page 163, line 9, leave out from "section" to "is" and insert:
19 of the Land Charges Act 1925, as set out in Schedule 4 to the Land Charges Act 1972".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment corrects a reference to the Land Charges Act, 1925, which has been affected, since the introduction of the Bill, by the Land Charges Act, 1972.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Clause 207

CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIA

Lords Amendment: No. 373, in page 165, line 14, leave out "affirmed" and insert "approved".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting correction. I do not know how we got the word "affirmed" instead of "approved", and we are correcting it by this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 26

CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIA

Lords Amendment: No. 376, in page 349, line 10, leave out "district" and insert "area".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient for the House to discuss with it Lords Amendments Nos. 377, 378, 379, in page 350, line 20. at end insert:
16A. It shall not be necessary for a burial authority to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State under section 1 of the Burial Act 1900 for the consecration of any portion of a burial ground.
16B. Section 2(3) of the Burial Act 1900 shall cease to have effect.
and No. 380.
Lords Amendment No. 376 is purely a drafting Amendment.
Lords Amendment No. 377 is slightly more substantial. Paragraph 14 of the Schedule temporarily applies an existing management code in an Act of 1847 to the cemeteries of the new burial authorities. The 1847 Act originally applied only to statutory cemetery companies. It was applied to certain local authority cemeteries from 1879 onwards. The Amendment enumerates several provisions in the 1847 Act which had not applied to local authorities since 1900, and provides that they shall not apply to the new burial authorities, which I think is eminently sensible.
Lords Amendment No. 378 is drafting.
In Lords Amendment No. 379 the purpose of new paragraph 16A is to make it no longer necessary for the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be obtained under Section 1 of the Burial Act, 1900, for the consecration of any part of a burial ground. The effect will be that burial authorities will need only to apply to the bishop to consecrate any portion of a burial ground.
The purpose and effect of new paragraph 16B is to abolish the power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 2 of the Burial Act, 1900, to require a burial authority to erect a chapel on unconsecrated ground.
These provisions are two of the central Government controls that are being abolished, and I am sure they will commend themselves to the House.
Lords Amendment No. 380 is purely drafting, concerned with the Welsh Church Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 209

ADAPTATION OF LAW RELATING TO OLD COUNTIES

Lords Amendment: No. 381, in page 166, line 41, leave out "and 211" and insert:
211 and section (Sheriffs and under-sheriffs)".

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 398 and 399, after Clause 211, in page 169, line 28, at end insert:

New Clause J

Sheriffs and under-sheriffs
J.—(1) Sheriffs appointed for a county or Greater London shall be known as high sheriffs, and any reference in any enactment or instrument to a sheriff shall be construed accordingly in relation to sheriffs for a county or Greater London.
(2) No persons shall be nominated in 1973 in pursuance of section 6(1) of the Sheriffs Act 1887 as persons fit to serve as high sheriff, but the lord-lieutenant of a new county or Greater London shall, as soon as may be after he has been appointed under section 211(l) above or has been specified in an Order in Council under section 211(4) above, nominate three persons as being fit to serve as high sheriff of that county or Greater London, as the case may be, and they shall be treated as having been nominated under the said section 6(1).
(3) The rights of Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster in relation to the appointment of high sheriffs shall apply throughout the whole of the counties of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire; and subsection (2) above shall not apply to those counties or to the county of Cornwall.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may by order prescribe the area for which each under-sheriff is to act.


(5) Where the area for which an under-sheriff acts is situated in two or more counties, the duty imposed by section 23 of the Sheriffs Act 1887 of appointing the under-sheriff for that area shall be discharged by the high sheriff of the county containing the greater part of that area, after consulting any other high sheriff concerned, and if any question arises as to which county contains the greater part of an under-sheriff's area, it shall be determined by the Lord Chancellor.
References in this subsection to a county include references both to Greater London and to the City (including the Temples).
(6) An under-sheriff shall as respects the area for which he acts be treated as the high sheriff's deputy for the purpose of all the high sheriff's functions, except his functions as returning officer at parliamentary elections.
(7) No privileges or duties of a sheriff shall be exercisable under section 34 of the Sheriffs Act 1887 or otherwise by the bailiff of a franchise.
(8) In this section "Greater London" does not include the City or the Temples.

Mr. Carlisle: I think that it would also be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 490.
The purpose of the new Clause is to enable the areas of jurisdiction of under-sheriffs to be left, broadly speaking, undisturbed by the local government changes brought about by the Bill. This is being done primarily to avoid disrupting under-sheriffs' offices and staffs pending a long-term decision to be taken by the Government in due course as to the arrangements for High Court execution.
The machinery for achieving that is to give the Lord Chancellor power, by statutory instrument, to prescribe under-sheriffs' areas of jurisdiction. It is expected that he will probably define them by reference to county court districts under the County Courts Act, 1959, thus preserving the status quo as far as possible.
The Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts recommended the discontinuance of the under-sheriff's functions in relation to the execution of High Court judgments. If that function were taken away from them they would be left with merely ceremonial and formal functions. No final decision has yet been taken on the implementation of that Report, but it is certainly possible that in the next few years the work of carrying out High Court executions may be transferred from the hands of under-sheriffs. Therefore the Government have

accepted the view of the Under-Sheriffs' Association that, particularly when it is possibly only for a short time, it is not worth causing the disruption which would be caused were any substantial change to be made in the territorial areas of under-sheriffs at present. Therefore, the new Clause makes it possible to preserve the existing areas of operation and function with a minimum of dislocation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 210

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Lords Amendment: No. 383, in page 167, line 30, at end insert:
(a) a non-metropolitan county which is not divided into petty sessional divisions".

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to consider Lords Amendments Nos. 384–397.

Mr. Carlisle: Although the Amendments look large in number, their purpose is simple. It is merely to deal with the effect on the administration of justice provisions in the Bill of the Government's decision to confer on the Isle of Wight the status of a non-metropolitan county. As a non-metropolitan county, it will now have a separate magistrates' courts committee, but, because of its size, the island will not be divided into petty sessional divisions like other non-metropolitan counties. Therefore, the description of petty session divisional areas where it occurs in the Bill needs to be extended to allow for a non-metropolitan county to be a petty sessions area.
The amendment to these definitions renders unnecessary the specific references in the Bill to the City of London.
This series of Amendments also remedies an omission. Paragraph 1(8)(b) of Schedule 4 to the Justices of the


Peace Act, 1949, deals with the constitution of the magistrates court committee in a county divided into petty sessional divisions. Paragraph 14(7) of Schedule 27 substitutes "metropolitan district" for "county", but it is equally important to cover the position of non-metropolitan authorities divided into petty sessional divisions—all those other than the Isle of Wight—and the Amendments meet that omission.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 212

CORONERS

Lords Amendment: No. 400, in page 169, line 30, at end insert
other than the City and the Temples".

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that it is convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 401 with this Amendment.
The purpose of Lords Amendment No. 400 is merely to make it clear that in the Clause "Greater London" does not include the City and the Temple.
Lords Amendment No. 401 abolishes the requirements in Section 5 of the Coroners Act, 1844, that a county coroner shall reside in his district or in some place wholly or partly surrounded by his district, or not more than two miles beyond the boundary of his district. This provision could cause difficulties in assigning coroners to districts under subsection (4), which requires the new county councils to divide their areas into coroners' districts. It can be dispensed with now that modern means of travel have reduced its value.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 214

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROSECUTE OR DEFEND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Lords Amendment: No. 402, in page 171, line 23, at end insert
(2) In this section "local authority" includes the Common Council.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that with this Amendment we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 403.
The Amendments are similar to Lords Amendments which we discussed yesterday, Lords Amendments Nos. 162, 188, 189 and 190. Like them, they are to give the Common Council duties which it would not otherwise possess. The Common Council must be specifically referred to if it is to have specific powers or duties.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 216

ARRANGEMENTS BY PRINCIPAL COUNCILS FOR CUSTODY OF RECORDS, ETC

Lords Amendment: No. 404, in page 171, line 40, leave out "records and".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords Amendments: Nos. 405 to 416.

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 404 and the group from No. 405 to 416 deal with documents, records, certificates of notice and so on with which local authorities are concerned.
Amendment No. 404 is drafting.
Amendment No. 405 deals with Clause 218 and inserts two new subsections. As originally worded, the Clause did not adequately cover the position of the records of ecclesiastical parishes, and the Amendment is intended to remedy that fault.
Amendment No. 406 improves the definition of specified papers" and is merely drafting.
Amendment No. 407 is drafting.
Amendments Nos. 408 and 410 alter the word "abstract" to "extract". I am not sure whether it was a spelling mistake or a typing error.
Amendment No. 409 again is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment No. 411 enables local authority documents to be simply proved in legal proceedings by means of properly authenticated photographic copies. I am sure that this will be of great value to local authorities since it will assist them to microfilm their documents free from the risk that proof by copy will be elaborate and expensive. Subsection (3A) provides that for the purpose of evidence in legal proceedings photographic copies of local authority documents, whether the originals are in existence or have been destroyed, are treated as if they were originals. Subsection (3B) provides for the authentication of photographic copies under the Clause. The certificate of the local authority's proper officer is the evidence that the document is a photographic copy of the original. Finally subsection (3C) provides a safeguard against the admission of bogus or doubtful copies by enabling the court to require production of the original if it exists.
Amendments Nos. 413, 414, 415 and 416 are drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 230

EVIDENCE OF BYELAWS

Lords Amendment: No. 417, in page 179, line 24 leave out from "sign" to end of line 25 and insert "the certificate".

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 418.

Mr. Carlisle: Amendment No. 417 is drafting. Amendment No. 418 is paving.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 234

FREEMAN

Lords Amendment: No. 420, in page 182, line 5, leave out Clause 234.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 424, 427 and 432.

Mr. Page: This group of Amendments deals with freemen in the existing boroughs.
In the course of the Bill's various stages we have had considerable discussion over how to preserve the rights of freemen. I am not speaking now of honorary freemen who are given the position of freemen as some sort of honour but of the real freeman of the town. The traditional qualification is that of birth, as the son of a freeman, or marriage to the daughter or widow of a freeman or what is known as "servitude" by being apprenticed to a freeman.
We discussed this matter at great length with those representing the freemen of the country and with their legal advisers. I can assure the House that this present Amendment preserves effectively all the rights of the existing real freemen and that freemanship will now continue. I am sure that the House will not wish me to go through all this in detail since the Clause is well agreed with those mainly concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 431, after Clause 238, in page 183, line 44, insert:

New Clause N

Transfer of armorial bearings from old to new authorities
N.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, Her Majesty may by Order in Council authorise any new local authority specified in the Order to bear and use any armorial bearings which may be so specified and which, immediately before 1st April 1974, were lawfully borne and used by an existing local authority which ceases to exist by virtue of section 1 or section 20 above.
(2) On Order in Council under this section shall provide that before any armorial bearings of an existing local authority may be borne and used by a new local authority in accordance with the Order, they shall be exemplified according to the laws of arms and recorded in the College of Arms.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause provides a simplified way of permitting the new authorities to inherit and continue in use the coats of arms of their predecessors. Many existing authorities wish to see the preservation in use of their existing armorial bearings. This is very reasonable and understandable. Many coats of arms used by the towns and boroughs are ancient in origin, and the Government wish to facilitate their continued use, but in order to continue their use under the present law a most elaborate process is involved. In this Clause we provide a simpler process. The Clause allows existing coats of arms to be transferred from the present authorities to the new ones by means of an order in council. In conjunction with the College of Arms, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will he issuing guidance in due course to the new authorities telling them where and when to apply for the transfer of coats of arms.
We realise that certain authorities are being split by the Bill. In some cases therefore there may be doubt as to which new authority should be entitled to use the coat of arms of an existing authority. Points such as that will be considered by the College of Arms, which will advise Her Majesty on the contents of the proposed order in council. We hope that there will not be any disputes and that

there will be amicable settlements. But I am sure that it is right to make it as easy as possible for existing authorities which have coats of arms to transfer them to the new authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 29

ADAPTATION, MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 438, in page 364, line 6, at end insert—
"House to house and street collections
20A. In section 5 of the Police, Factories, &amp;c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916, in subsection (1) for the words "A police authority" there shall be substituted the words "Each of the authorities specified in subsection (1A) below", and for the words "the police" there shall be substituted the word "their", and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(1A) The authorities referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) the Common Council of the City of London,
(b) the police authority for the Metropolitan Police District, and
(c) the council of each district;

but any regulations made by a district council under that subsection shall not have effect with respect to any street or public place which is within the Metropolitan Police District as well as within the district.
20B.—(1) In section 2 of the House to House Collections Act 1939, in subsection (1), for the word "police", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "licensing" and the word "police", in the second place where it occurs, shall be omitted.
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(1A) In this section "licensing authority" means—

(a) in relation to the City of London, the Common Council;
(b) in relation to the Metropolitan Police District, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; and
(c) in relation to a district exclusive of any part thereof within the Metropolitan Police District, the district council."

(3) In that section, in the proviso to subsection (2) and in subsections (3), (4) and (6), for the word "police", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "licensing".
(4) In section 4(2)(e) of that Act the word "police" shall be omitted.


(5) In section 9 of that Act, in subsection (2), for the words from "said Commissioner" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis by virtue of his being a licensing authority within the meaning of section 2 of this Act".".

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Lords Amendment is to transfer the control of street and house-to-house collections for charity outside London to the new district councils. As the House probably knows, these functions were conferred on police authorities by the Acts of 1916 and 1939. However, the reorganisations which have taken place of police forces since the war have necessitated consequential changes in the authorities responsible, with the result that the present pattern is no longer based on any discernible principle. These functions are exercised now by many local authorities at county and borough level and in some places remain in the hands of the police authorities. In the view of the Government the control of these collections is more a matter for local authorities than it is for the police, and we have decided that it is time that the transfer of powers over house-to-house and street collections should be completed. It is essentially a local, normally an urban, matter, and the Government, therefore, think that it is right, and in tune with the allocation of other functions already included in the Bill, that these collections should in future be supervised by district councils which are familiar with local circumstances and likely to be more familiar with local circumstances.
There are, however, consequential and transitional arrangements which will need to be made, some of which will be subject to orders under Clause 243, and some of which will involve licensing authorities in administrative action. It is, therefore, the intention of the Government that a memorandum of guidance about the arrangements to be made should be circulated in the near future to all the authorities concerned.
I think that is all I need to say. As I say, at the moment there is a patchwork of responsibility. It seems sensible to transfer it to the local authorities rather than leave part of it in the hands

of the police authorities and part of it in the hands of the local authorities, and it is in accord with modern practice to give these functions to the local authorities, and as they relate essentially to what are local, urban matters—the questions of street collections, and house-to-house collections—it seems appropriate to transfer them to district councils rather than county councils, and that is the effect of this Lords Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 243

CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

Lords Amendment: No. 449, in page 186, line 25, leave out "Part I or II of".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 450.

Mr. Page: I would refer also to Lords Amendments Nos. 452 to 454. These ensure that Clause 243—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I understand that we are now discussing Lords Amendments Nos. 449 and 450.

Mr. Page: I was going a little too fast, but I will mention only Lords Amendments 449 and 450 now.
However, what I was saying was relevant to those two Amendments, and that is that we are endeavouring to ensure that Clause 243 has sufficient powers in it to carry out the transitional matters which will have to be carried out by order. There is a host of transitional matters to be sorted out either too detailed or too minor to be dealt with in the Bill itself. The transfer of property from the existing authorities to the new authorities will require an enormous amount of detail, and there is, I fear, a considerable amount of work for the new authorities to undertake—the co-ordinating committees, and the shadow councils


to be elected in the spring in 1973. We want to make certain, and we do make certain by these Lords Amendments, that Clause 243 does contain sufficient powers for those matters to be sorted out by order.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 451, in page 186, line 38, leave out from "applying" to "instrument" in line 39 and insert:
with or without modifications, or amending, repealing, or revoking, with or without savings, any provision of an Act passed or an".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Lords Amendment we can also take Lords Amendments Nos. 455, 456 and 468 to 472.

Mr. Page: I will refer to those other Lords Amendments now also.
Lords Amendment No. 451 ensures that the order-making power in Clause 243 will permit application of local Acts or instruments with or without modifications. This is merely a tidying up of powers given in Clause 243.
Lords Amendment No. 455 also relates to Clause 243 and its purpose is to alter the parliamentary procedure applying to ministerial orders made under Clause 243 which have the effect of extending the area of operation of a local Act in force on 1st April, 1974. I think I ought to deal with these slightly more extensively. They really relate to local Acts and instruments, and the local Acts are dealt with in more detail in Clause 249. These two Lords Amendments deal specifically with them.
The purpose of the Amendments is quite simply that the later Clause provides for continuation in force after 1st April, 1974, of local Acts and instruments. The local Acts will remain in operation in these areas where they apply at that date, subject to appropriate substitution of the new local authorities for the existing ones and in some cases this will mean that local Acts will remain

in force in one part of a new area but will not apply in the remainder of that area where different local Acts can operate.
Obviously, this would be inconvenient in the long run, and the Bill provides two ways in which local Acts can or will be rationalised in the long run. Local Acts in force in April, 1974, will expire after a given period. They will expire unless provisions are made specifically to exempt them from that arrangement. The new authorities will need to promote fresh local Bills, if they are not thus exempt, to save or to re-enact for their area such local Act provisions as are still necessary and justifiable, and that is what Clause 249 does. In the short term, the Secretary of State may make an order under the general order-making powers under Clause 247 amending or repealing or extending a local Act where such action is needed consequentially upon reorganisation.
As the Bill stands, any such order would be subject to a negative Resolution, but on reflection I consider that in one type of case a more elaborate procedure would be appropriate; that is to say, where a local Act extends in application to an area where it does not apply at present. Some local Acts include provisions which affect individuals and private interests who should have the opportunity to petition against the extension of any such local Act if it is to apply to them for the first time and if they consider themselves to be prejudically affected.
The purpose of the two Amendments is therefore to enable this type of order, that is to say, one extending the application of a local Act, to be subject to the provisional order procedure instead of the negative Resolution procedure. As the House knows, the provisional order procedure is comparable in many ways with the Private Bill procedure in that it requires local advertisement of the provisions and affords persons affected the opportunity to petition to Parliament. The final order is then given effect by being annexed to a provisional order confirmation Bill. I believe that this is the right procedure where individuals' rights are affected for the first time.
I apologise to the House if my enthusiasm for the forms of delegated


legislation has carried me away on this occasion to explain it in some detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 452, in page 187, line 3, after "by" insert
my Act passed or by

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 453 and 454.

Mr. Page: These Amendments, again, make certain that Clause 243 covers all the transitional matters that will have to be dealt with and which are far too detailed to be dealt with in the Bill itself —the members of various bodies and issues which arise from changes of boundaries, which all need to be dealt with in some considerable detail, but which are quite inappropriate to be included in that detail in the Bill. The Opposition have complained bitterly about the length of the Bill, but if we included all these transitional matters, instead of providing for them by order, I do not know where we should finish.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 244

TRANSFER OF OFFICERS

Lords Amendment: No. 458, in page 190, line 1, at end insert—
"(a) a police authority

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 459 to 466.

Mr. Speed: This is a small but important group of Amendments affecting staff under the various staff provisions of the Bill. Nos. 458 and 459 extend to civilian employees of police authorities the same protection as that afforded to the staff of local authorities affected by the reorganisation of local government.
A police authority is not synonymous with a local authority. It has functions separate from those of a local authority laid upon it by the Police Act, 1964. The protection afforded by Section 244(1) is, by reason of the generality of that provision, available to the civilian employees of police authorities, but without the Amendment the specific protection of subsections (2) and (3) would not be available to them.
Amendment No. 460 is important. As this matter was raised with me by the Meriden branch of NALGO some months ago, I am particularly pleased to be dealing with the Amendment tonight. It concerns unfair dismissal and other matters connected with employment.
At the moment, protection against unfair dismissal is afforded to an employee by the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, but it does not apply unless employees have been continuously employed by one employer for a period of two years, and there are specific provisions covering the situation where the employer changes through the operation of an Act of Parliament. In such circumstances, the notional change of employer does not break the continuity of employment.
It follows that the generality of officers transferred to the new authorities under the staff transfer order will not lose the protection against unfair dismissal afforded by the Industrial Relations Act. However, it would appear that those officers who themselves secure appointments to the new authorities prior to the operation of the transfer order will, unless specific provision is made, break the continuity of their employment and thus have to start a new two-year qualifying period before securing protection.
The amount of notice that an employee is entitled to under the Contracts of Employment Act, 1972, varies according to the length of continuous employment, and the points that I have outlined apply equally to the determination of continuous employment for the purposes of notice. The object of the new Clause is to protect the position of officers who secure appointments and are thus not automatically transferred.
Amendments Nos. 461 to 465 extend the jurisdiction of the Staff Commission in respect of staff recruitment and transfer arrangements to passenger transport


executives and other authorities as defined in Clause 245(4). A passenger transport executive will be established in respect of each metropolitan county and local authority transport undertakings will be transferred to the executive. The staff of those local authority undertakings are entitled to the same protection from the Staff Commission as are the staff of undertakings transferred to one of the new local authorities outside the metropolitan areas. In order to achieve this it is necessary to add a passenger transport executive to the list of bodies within the definition of "relevant authority" in Clause 245(4). The other Amendments are consequential upon that.
Amendment No. 466 enables payments to be made to chief officers who opt for early retirement as an alternative to waiting on and taking compensation terms. This is one of the components of the compensation deal that we have proposed in a consultation document and which is expected by the local authorities and the local authority staff associations. The general supposition until now has been that Clause 255—"Compensation"— covered this case, but it does not. This new Clause thus merely puts into the Bill what we believed was already there.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 249

LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 473, in page 197, line 44, at end insert:
a provision contained in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment excludes the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, from the provisions which cause local legislation affecting non-metropolitan counties to expire at the end of 1984. The House will agree, I think, that it would not be right to apply that provision to that Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 253

ORDERS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 476, in page 202, line 19, after "Minister" insert "or the Treasury".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, although I hesitate to say that when it inserts "or the Treasury" after the "Minister". However, it is really a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 257

SAVINGS

Lords Amendment: No. 480, in page 206, line 11, leave out "or gas".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we should also take Lords Amendments Nos. 481 and 482.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

These are drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 30

REPEALS

Lords Amendment: No. 484, in page 370, line 9, column 3, at beginning insert:
In section 5, the words from 'and shall reside' onwards".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we should also take Lords Amendments Nos. 485 to 629 inclusive.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It gives me the greatest delight to be able to move all these Amendments and to inform the House that they are merely consequential upon all we have been discussing and repeal certain sections of and even whole Acts. The very fact that there is this massive list of repeals does not mean that we have repeated those Acts in the Bill. In fact, we have removed the great majority from the Statute Book.

Mr. George Thomas: That was the best speech of the day.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 630, after Clause 258, in page 207, line 3, at end insert:

New Clause S

Commencement
S.—(1) The provisions of this Act to which this subsection applies shall, except so far as brought into force earlier by an order under subsection (2) below, come into force on 1st April, 1974.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order appoint an earlier date for the coming into force of any provision to which subsection (1) above applies and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes and, in particular, different days may be so appointed for the coming into force of the same provision in different areas.
(3) Subsection (1) above applies to the following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

sections 13, 16(1) and (3) and 17;
section 40;
section 48(8) and (9);
section 50(4) to (7);
sections 53 to 59 and Schedule 8;
section 62;
section 75;
section 89(7);
section 99;

Parts VI to XI, except as provided by subsections (4) and (5) below;

section 240 and Schedule 29;
section 249(3) to (7);
section 258 and Schedule 30;

paragraphs 5 to 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 6;
in Schedule 12, Parts II and III, and Part VI so far as applicable to parish councils.

(4) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to the following provisions of Parts VI to XI of this Act, that is to say—

sections 103 and 105;
section (Transitional arrangements for discharge of functions);
section 115;
section 135;
section 165;
section 176(3) to (9) and (11);

so much of section 178 as confers a power to make or direct the making or amendment of development plan schemes and so much of section 177 as applies to the interpretation of the provisions relating to such schemes;

section 181(6) and (7);
section 185(4);
section 186(3);
section 190(6) to (9);
section 191(2) and (3);
section 192(3) and (4);

section (Power to confer on district councils in Wales certain functions relating to agriculture);

section 194(3) and (4);
section 195(4) to (8);
section 198;
section 200(2) to (8);
section 208(4);
section 212(4);
section 224;
section 236;
section (Computation of time and timing of elections, etc.);

paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 13 and so much of section 167 as relates thereto.
(5) Without prejudice to section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889, any provision of Part IX or X of this Act—

(a) which empowers or requires any person to make any arrangements or any instrument with respect to the exercise of functions under such provision or with respect to the setting up of any body of persons or the appointment of persons to any office or employment with a view to exercising any such functions or with respect to the deployment of officers in connection with the exercise of such functions;
(b) which empowers or requires any person to give directions, take steps or make representations with respect to any such arrangements or instrument; or
(c) which amends or applies any enactment which empowers or requires any person to make any such arrangements or instrument;

shall come into force so as to enable those functions to be exercised in accordance with the arrangements or instrument on 1st April 1974.

(6) Sections 80 to 92, 103 and 105 above shall not apply to the Greater London Council


or members of that council before the day on which the councillors of that council elected at the first ordinary elections of such councillors after the passing of this Act come into office.
(7) Sections 80 to 91, 103 and 105 above shall not apply to a London borough council or the members of any such council before 1st April 1974.
(8) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to parish councils in England and the members of such councils:—

(a) sections 44(5) and (Temporary appointment of members of parish and community councils) above shall not apply to them before 1st April 1974;
(b) sections 80 to 91, 103 and 105 above shall not apply to them before the day on which parish councillors elected at those elections come into office; and
(c) sections 93 to 97 above shall not apply to them before 1st April 1974.

(9) Part V of this Act shall not apply to existing parish councils in Wales or to members of such councils.
(10) Sections 103 and 105 above shall not apply to members of the Common Council before the day on which any common councilmen elected at the first ordinary election of common councilmen after the passing of this Act come into office."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Lords Amendment No. 631.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Chat this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 258 provides for the commencement of the Act. It makes different provisions for different parts. We have referred to these from time to time when dealing with the separate Clauses, so it will not be necessary for me to go through them in any detail. Amendment No. 631 goes as a formal Amendment with the rather long Amendment No. 630. If there are any points which the House would wish me to mention regarding the commencement, I will certainly do so. I do not treat this matter briefly because it is unimportant. It is indeed a very important Clause. It affects the coming into operation of the various parts of the Act. Some important parts we have had to delay and others we have brought forward. I should be giving a dissertation on the whole Bill if I started on these matters.

Mr. John Silkin: You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to engage the Minister in a

rigorous inquisition at this moment. I want to look at the date of the coming into effect of the various parts of the Bill and to point out that for the past 12 months all of us in the House at the moment, with one or two exceptions, have been immured and have learned both to love and to loathe the Bill. We love the Minister, we even love the Under-Secretary and, from what little we saw of him, we almost learned to love the Secretary of State. However, we never, alas, totally learned to love the Bill.
What disturbs me about the date of April, 1974, is that undoubtedly by then the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be in opposition and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be in government and a lot of questions will be raised. However, that is perhaps trespassing on the rules of order.
I merely wish to say that it has been an interesting year, and, if their Lordships do not mind, I do not propose on this occasion to disagree with them.

Mr. Peter Walker: Following that interesting and penetrating final attack by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), I should like to say how grateful we have been to him for the manner in which he has objectively and constructively carried out his duties in leading the Opposition on the Bill. We have been so impressed that we feel he should continue in opposition for a very long time. I am sure he will do so.
I think I can now say something with which both sides of the House will agree. I should like to refer first to the incredible manner in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development has handled the Bill in Committee, on Report and elsewhere, so well supported by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and secondly to the incredible volume of work which my officials and the draftsmen have done at all stages of the Bill, which both sides of the House have read.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Peter Walker, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Keith Speed, Mr. John


Silkin, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to: to be commnicated to the Lords.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

ARMY PENSION (Mr. E. DENVER)

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I count myself very fortunate to be able to initiate an Adjournment debate upon what is the last possible occasion of this Session of Parliament. I am indeed grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army for his presence this evening, because I know full well the heavy burdens which he bears in his responsibilities for our serving troops, particularly those in Northern Ireland. I also know that he was in Gibraltar 36 hours ago; so I am most grateful for his speedy return.
I think it would be unfortunate if this House could concern itself only with the affairs of those of our serving forces and ignore injustices to those who retired many years ago. I seek to convince my hon. Friend this evening that my constituent, Mr. Ernest Denyer, suffered an injustice when he retired from the Army many years ago.
My constituent comes from a family which has served this country with great distinction at considerable personal sacrifice. He is the sole survivor of four brothers. At 92 years of age that might not seem to be remarkable, but the other three all lost their lives nearly half a century ago as regular serving men. In addition, my constituent's only son lost his life in 1942 while a prisoner of war and as a result of Japanese barbarities and war crimes. Therefore, he is the sole survivor of five male members of his family and, although happily his own record was not so tragic, it is one of unmatched service.
He joined the Army as long ago as 6th March, 1899. It is perhaps of interest to the House to know that he has a clear

recollection of lining the route in the Mall for the funeral of Queen Victoria. Immediately following this, he served in the South African war and was awarded the King's Medal with four clasps. During the 1914–18 war he served in Egypt, and in 1917 was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, which gives him a small annuity. He was discharged on 25th January, 1930–42 years ago. At that time he had completed no fewer than 30 years and 326 days of exemplary service in the Army.
I wish now to draw attention to the terms of service as he understood them when he enlisted, and for the convenience of the House I propose to refer to his pension in terms of the old currency. He joined the Army on the basis that, provided he served for the minimum of 21 years, for each year completed as a private or lance-coporal he would receive a pension of 1½d. per day; for each year that he served as a staff sergeant he would receive a pension of 3d. a day; and for each year he completed as a warrant officer class 1 he would receive a pension of 4d. a day. This was subject to the then regulation that soldiers could not serve after their 45th birthday, but towards the end of his service the age limit was raised to 50. In the event, my constituent, all these years ago, served four complete years as another rank enabling him to obtain a pension of 6d. per day, which is four times 1½d., for each completed year. He served six years as a staff sergeant, entitling him to a further 1s. 6d. per day—six years at 3d. He served six years as a warrant officer class 2, entitling him to another 1s. 9d. per day; and he served 14 years as a warrant officer class 1, which gave him an entitlement of 4s. 8d. a day.
It is not disputed that, on the terms of his engagement, his service created an entitlement to a weekly pension on retirement of £2 18s. 11d.; and that, he understood, was the position when he retired. The pension which he was awarded was £2 15s. To many of us the difference between those two figures may seem to be very small, but it is not small to my constituent. He maintains—and I think that this is understandable—that he would never have re-enlisted for the further period of five years if there had been any suggestion that the additionl service was not pensionable.
I think that the House will agree that it is unlikely that a man of 45 years of age would re-enlist for a further five years, thus prejudicing his chances of employment on discharge, if he had already reached a maximum pension, or thereabouts. That is the point of this case—that he was induced to serve for a further five years and at the end of that period he found, to his astonishment, that that extra period did not entitle him to an increased pension.
I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that my constituent has no complaint about the way in which his pension has kept pace with inflation. Indeed, he is grateful to successive Governments for the way in which his pension has moved, and not least for the 18 per cent. increase which took place last year. But that is not the point. His concern is that at the advanced age of 92, in the evening of his life, he realises that his pension will be cut by two-thirds on his death and his widow's income will be drastically reduced. In addition, his widow will lose the annuity which he receives for the Meritorious Service Medal.
He is therefore fighting this case on a question of principle—that he was induced to re-enlist for five years without knowing that those extra years service would not increase his pension. He has suffered under a sense of injustice. His case was taken up by my predecessor as Member for Croydon, North-West, and now, as a last effort, I bring it before my hon. Friend. If the claim were conceded, he would receive a back pension of about £690. But he is not concerned with the back pension. What he seeks is the annual increase to which he believes he is entitled which, allowing for the increases for inflation, would amount to £36 per annum.
There can be few left who served in the South African war. There can be few left who re-enlisted for the additional five years service under the misapprehension that it was pensionable service. That was not explained. The point has been made time and again in correspondence with the Ministry of Defence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have some encouraging news to give tonight and that my elderly constituent, now approaching his 92nd

birthday, will find that the fight which he has conducted for so long has not been in vain.

8.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) for raising this subject. It is true that I returned from Gibraltar not many hours ago, but I think that this debate, and the manner in which it has been opened so eloquently by my hon. Friend, serves to remind me and others of the importance which we in the Army rightly attach to the welfare of those who serve in it as well as to the welfare of those who have given their best to the Army in the past.
It is very important, as my hon. Friend said, to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done to those who have honourably and courageously served their country in the armed forces. As my hon. Friend pointed out, his constituent and family have given great service to our country and Mr. Denyer's case deserves the most careful and sympathetic consideration.
The facts, as I understand them, are these. Mr. Denyer served in the Army from March, 1899, to January, 1930, and attained the rank of warrant officer class 1. He has the great distinction of being a veteran both of the Boer War and, World War I. Over the years Mr. Denyer has had a good deal of correspondence with the Ministry of Defence about his pension and it is clear that, despite previous explanations, he is still suffering under a sense of grievance. I am grateful, therefore, for this opportunity tonight to set the record straight.
As was made clear by my hon. Friend, the basis of Mr. Denyer's complaint is that he believes, mistakenly as I will endeavour to explain, that his original award of pension under the 1919 pension code was related to a maximum age limit of 45 years, that the age limit was subsequently increased but that that increase was not reflected in the pension rules and that therefore his last five years of service to the age of 50 were in effect non-pension-able.
Perhaps I could first clear up the question of the age limit. The maximum age limits for compulsory discharge of


warrant officers class 1, which were contained in the Royal Warrant for pay, appointments, promotion and effective pay in 1922, and which varied between age 45 and age 60 depending on the category of soldier concerned, were the same as those in the previous Royal Warrant of 1914 and were unchanged in 1930 when Mr. Denyer was discharged. There was thus no change in the maximum age limit affecting Mr. Denyer before the introduction of the 1919 pension code and Mr. Denyer's discharge.
I turn to Mr. Denyer's pension entitlement. A soldier's pension entitlement is governed by the terms of the pension code in force when he goes to pension, in this case the 1919 code. The 1919 pension code provided for soldier's pension based on rank and the number of years completed reckonable service from the age of 18. There was no upper age limit, but the total pension entitlement was subject to an over-riding maximum pension which was scaled according to rank. For a WO1 the maximum pension was 55s. a week and this was the rate of pension which Mr. Denyer received on his discharge. It was and remains the correct basic pension applicable to his rank and years of service, and he received the same pension as any other WO1 discharged at the same time with the same rank and service.
It is a common feature of most pension schemes in the public sector that they contain provision for an upper limit to the award. Nowadays the maximum is often expressed in a different way, for example as a percentage of pay. There is nothing unusual about such a provision. It can have the effect that the last few years of service of a long-serving soldier may not add to his pension entitlement.
Mr. Denyer had earned his maximum pension by his 28th year of service. Although Mr. Denyer may not have been aware of the full provisions of the Royal Warrant—Army Order 325 of 1919—when he agreed to serve beyond his 21 years, he nevertheless benefited considerably from the improved terms of that Warrant and from the extra service which he gave. Had he taken his discharge in 1920 when he had completed 21 years' qualifying service and five years as a WO1, he would have received a pension of only £1 17s. 11d. a week, compared with his award of £2 15s. a week. If

he had continued to serve and taken his discharge in 1930 with an award of pension under the previous pension code—that is to say the 1914 code—he would have received only £1 11s. 6d.
It has been claimed—and I believe that Mr. Denyer feels this strongly—that when the Pensions Increase Bill of 1971 was introduced an undertaking was given to make good deficiencies in past pensions. It has been suggested that Mr. Denyer's complaint about his alleged five years' unpensionable service constitutes such a deficiency. I should like to be able to accept the argument but I am not able to. First, Mr. Denyer was not deprived of pensionable service, and I cannot agree that the over-riding maximum which applied to his pension was a deficiency or an anomaly. Secondly, I remind the House of the main purpose of the 1971 pensions increase Measure which was set out in the White Paper on the Pensions Increase Bill 1971. Briefly, its aim was to make good the loss of purchasing power of the original pension. It was not the intention of the 1971 Act to alter the conditions under which the pensions were originally awarded.
It might be suggested that we should take the opportunity of the pensions review to look again at the rules affecting Mr. Denyer's position and pension. I am afraid that here again I must disappoint my hon. Friend. I cannot undertake this. First, as I have explained, I do not accept that any shortcoming in the rules has been demonstrated. Secondly, the pensions review will be concerned only with the rules affecting those going to pension after the effective date of any new scheme, and it would be contrary to practice and certainly most unfair to other pensioners, of whom there are many thousands, to change retrospectively the rules embodied in the 1919 pension code which ran right up to 1940. In other words, it is not just a question involving Mr. Denyer, it involves thousands of other pensioners.
Perhaps I may conclude by explaining exactly how Mr. Denyer's pension has been made up over the years. Mr. Denyer was awarded a maximum pension of 55s. a week from 26th January, 1930 which attracted increases of 5d. a day when he reached the age of 55, and a further 4d. a day at the age of 65. In


addition, in 1959 he was awarded an annuity of £10 as a reward for his long and meritorious service in the Army. As a result of the various pension increase Measures, his award, including the annuity, has been increased to its present level of £602·11p a year. It will be further increased to £661·72p from 1st December, 1972 as a result of the 1972 pension increase Measure.
I hope, but I am not sure that my hope will be fulfilled, that what I have said tonight will satisfy Mr. Denyer that at least he has not been unfairly treated over his pension. I have looked into this case most carefully. I can assure my hon. Friend that his constituent has received the full pension to which he is entitled and which he has undoubtedly earned by his long and valuable service.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I am grateful that time has allowed us to raise, before the current Session of Parliament ends, some of the policy issues that face the Administration in upgrading our environment. Certainly, in the current Session we will all have experienced at first hand from our constituents something of the growing public interest and concern about pollution problems—whether in direct representations or in letters.
This concern, which has been taken up in a prominent way by the media, has been presented in this House through a number of debates, a whole host of Parliamentary Questions and one or two items of important and useful legislation. We are hoping that in the next Session time will be found for further legislation which we know is now being worked upon.
When we face what in some quarters is hysteria, when we hear people say that the hour is at hand, that the world is about to end because of pollution, it is important to remind ourselves and our constituents that pollution for the policy-maker is not a new subject. Seven hundred years ago, in the city of London,

the use of coal was prohibited as being "prejudicial to health", and a special commission was appointed to track down the offenders and punish them for the first offence with "great fines and ransoms" and upon a second offence "to demolish their furnaces".
Queen Elizabeth I kept out of London because
she findeth herself greatly grieved and annoyed with the taste and smoke of sea coals",
which at that time were shipped from Newcastle. She seems to have had an especially strong sense of smell, because she even banned the making of woad within five miles of anywhere that she was staying, on account of the stench.
The Thames, although it was still a salmon river 250 years ago, was nevertheless badly polluted, as can be gathered from a little book called "Hints to Brewers", dated 1702:
Thames water, taken up about Greenwich at low water, when it is free of the brackishness of the sea, and has in it all the fat and sullage from this Great City of London, makes a very strong drink. It will of itself ferment wonderfully and after its due purgation and three times stinking, it will be so strong that several Sea Commanders have told me that it has often fuddied their Mariners.
That was 1702. By the last century, we know that the Thames was more than intoxigating. Parliament itself was inconvenienced and the old records show that strong language was used. The river was said to be in a "pestilential condition" and a "vile state". It was an "abominable ditch" and a "vast sewer" which would "surely spread disease and death around". A Mr. Brady in a Parliamentary Question complained that hon. Gentlemen sitting in the Committee Rooms and in the Library were utterly unable to remain there in consequence of the stench. He wanted to know what action would be taken to "mitigate the effluvium" and to discontinue the nuisance. So pollution, for the policy-maker, is not a new issue.
Why then, at a time when the air in our cities is visibly improving, many acres of derelict land are disappearing and life is returning to many of our rivers, should there be such a public outcry? I suppose that the odd spectacular accident which has attracted a great deal of publicity—like the Torrey Canyon, the oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel, or


the drums which rolled up on the Cornish beaches—have played their part in alerting public attention and arousing concern on the issue.
Pollution, too, has become much more pervasive with the geographical spread of industry and development and it is increasingly difficult even for people with a great deal of money and influence to buy their escape from it. So protest is no longer restricted to any given district, it has become universalised. People are much more mobile, intellectually through the media and physically through the automobile. Whereas in the past, I suspect, they became inured to environmental squalor in their midst, today they tend to make unfavourable comparisons and discontent grows.
But perhaps the principal reason for the new public interest in this topic is that as people become more affluent and basic wants are satisfied they change their priorities. They may still want more goods, but not at the price of the "bads" which at present go with them.
The higher incomes and more leisure which we are promised will, I suspect, mean greater emphasis on the quality of life in the future. It is for that reason that I cannot agree with parliamentary colleagues—there are quite a few of them —who seem to suppose that pollution is just another trendy subject. The topic may be very much in fashion, but it is not a fad. There are votes in sewage: the environment as an issue has arrived.
The subject already influences policies in many fields that are not directly controlled by the Department of the Environment, and in time it is possible that it will condition them. As policymakers, we are presented with some very difficult choices when we are trying to set environmental standards. We are not helped any by being dependent upon experts who openly disagree about the technical solutions to problems and even about what the actual problems are.
The first question is, what level of purity do we aim for? The cost of control rises very steeply with the degree of purity which is adopted. The more we spend on abating pollution, the less we will have available for other desirable expenditures. Pollution has a real cost and ideally it should be reduced to the

point where cost equals benefit. It would of course help if we could measure accurately the damage that pollution causes, but unfortunately ecological processes are so complex and can spread so far in space and time that it is exceptionally difficult to measure these costs with any accuracy. At present, we can really only make elaborate guesses.
A cost benefit analysis exercise certainly does not provide us with all the answers. In the environmental field, some of the most important factors are intangible—amenity, for instance—and these are difficult to measure in money terms. People want clean air and clean water, less noise and pleasant landscapes, but exactly how much are they prepared to pay in higher taxes higher prices or in benefits forgone?
The second question that occurs immediately to the policy maker is: what are the priorities within pollution control itself? Resources, particularly intellectual resources, are limited, and we cannot afford to do the maximum job of abatement everywhere or all at once. Is a reduction in noise levels more important than the suppression of car exhaust? Should contamination of water supplies take precedence over further improvements in relation to contamination of the air? The choices are rather complicated by the fact that controls of water pollution can create new air pollution problems, and the suppression of air pollution can increase problems existing in regard to solid waste disposal. So the effect of one programme on another has to he considered.
I suggest that, ideally, human health should be the top priority, with immediate consideration going to the environmental problems of areas where health hazards already exist. Second in priority might come threats to living resources like fisheries and ecological systems on which we are dependent for our long-term survival. Last ideally, should come things like dereliction and amenity. But the trouble is that people want a pleasant environment as well as a tolerable one, and, in practice, political pressures—which I certainly experience in my constituency—tend to build up in such a way that attention is concentrated on second magnitude problems at the expense of the critical problem areas.
The third question that any policy maker of responsibility must consider is what obligation he has to protect the interests of future generations against actions that are taken now. I believe that we certainly have such an obligation, and that we ought to take into account any costs that future generations may have to bear. Nuclear wastes are a particularly forceful example. We are being asked to construct more and more nuclear power stations in this country but we do not yet know how to dispose safely of these wastes. We ought to ask ourselves: are we entitled to commit future generations to tackle a problem which we ourselves do not yet know how to handle?
It is difficult to evaluate the benefit to our descendants of a given environmental improvement. After all, we do not know what value they will put upon it, nor do we know how the technology of waste disposal will evolve in that time. To persuade the public to think on a time scale longer than that of their own lives or that of their children has never been an easy exercise for statesmen and political leaders. The fact that people are more interested in the present than in the future has often been cited as an argument against entrusting the environment to the mandate of public opinion. I feel that that argument might be a little more valid if hon. Members here and in Parliaments overseas showed that they had a time horizon stretching beyond the next election.
Our common law, and I dare say that this will be a controversial issue in the next parliamentary Session, protects individuals to some extent against various forms of pollution. If an action is brought and won, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the damage he has sustained, he can also ask for an injunction to restrain the polluter. But many people whom I know would like to see this system enlarged into a charter of amenity rights. They argue that if we had this charter the very fact that we as individuals had an interest in clean land or clean air or a pleasant view would make potential polluters much more cautious, simply because they would wish to avoid any liability for damages that might arise.

I accept that argument, but this proposal suffers from the drawback that common law has always suffered from, and that is the difficulty of collecting evidence to prove one's case and the prohibitive cost of bringing court actions. I do not believe that an extension of the law of nuisance would protect individuals when confronted with claims against giant corporations, although I would concede that we could expect the amenity societies in future to play a greater part in litigation on behalf of individuals and of their own members than has been the case in the past. The common law, which I do not wish to denigrate, does have weaknesses. It has been remedial rather than preventative. It has tended to aid the victim of pollution after the event rather than before it and the public's interest in a clean environment has been protected only incidentally.
Many people will conclude that we need more laws and legislation, but I stress that there are grave limitations on what statutory controls can achieve. The standards which we lay down in the House tend to be swiftly outdated by improved technology and new understanding of ecological hazards. Today we are hard put to it to find parliamentary time to keep up with the use of new materials and processes in industry. The fixed and rigid standards which, in the nature of things, we impose from the House may undercontrol pollution in that it may well be within the capacity of an individual firm to reduce the damage which it does below the legal requirement. However, there is no incentive to do so.
The weakness which I stress to those who are always looking for more and more public control to upgrade and improve our environment is that central control lacks flexibility. That means that pollution control officers can find themselves enforcing standards which are inappropriate to the given environmental situation in which they find themselves.
In seeking to control river pollution, it is necessary to take account of specific characteristics such as width, depth and flow rate, and of the different uses to which the water body may be put—recreation, amenity, transportation, fisheries, water abstraction, or waste


disposal. When the rules are too rigid, too inflexible, when they are standardised and identical in every case, clearly that is not possible.
The method which we have adopted to get round these problems has been to delegate responsibility to specialised agencies and to give them latitude in applying restrictions and regulations. For example, the river authorities have a good deal of discretion in laying down consent conditions. That is also true of the Alkali Inspectorate, which has considerable discretion in what it will accept as "best practical means". This system allows the enforcement authority to determine the conditions according to individual circumstances, local ecology and economics, and also to take account of changes in technology.
The specialised agency provides a permanent organisation, continuously on watch, charged with suppressing pollution, and the system has worked well. The goals have been realistic, the timetables fair, and enforcement sensible. Nevertheless, the agencies, as we know from some hon. Members and certainly from outside the House, are under attack. They are accused of being soft on polluters and even of allowing themselves to be dominated by them.
The source of the dissatisfaction lies in the fact that a great deal of the work of those who safeguard our environment is hidden from view by out-dated Sections of the River (Prevention of Pollution) Act and Alkali Acts, which tend, not always intentionally, to promote secrecy about industrial effluents and wastes. Regretfully, although I am pleased to say that this does not apply to the Department of the Environment, the veil is sometimes drawn by administrative decisions also. Non-disclosure and lack of candour simply arouse suspicions that all is not well and undermines public confidence in the work of controlling bodies. It is the absence of accurate data that gives rise to misconceived and ill-informed comments and allegations that the environment is not being properly protected.
I do not believe that the argument that we need confidentiality to protect business secrets withstands careful examina-

tion. It is not difficult for me to wade into a stream or water course in my constituency with a jam jar and take my own sample and go to the expense of having it analysed if I so wish.
In these days of industrial espionage, takeover and head hunting, I find it difficult to believe that another company which wishes to obtain the secrets of a competitor cannot do so. If greater protection is required for such processes, we should be looking to the law of industrial property and not to secrecy in pollution control.
I was pleased to note that the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution proposed that research workers and other "responsible" persons who could use the knowledge for the ultimate benefit for the environment should have access to confidential information in future. Why "responsible" persons, and who is a responsible person? I believe that a file of analyses of all samples and other data should be open to inspection by any person on payment of a suitable fee. Without disclosure, there can be no right of objection.
As I see it, the object in making pollution control data generally available is to strengthen the accountability of the enforcement agencies by bringing the public in on the decisions and choices that have to be made. There is under the present system no method whereby the plain man's wish for a clean river or smokeless air or an unspoilt view can form part of the defining of the consent conditions. The expert may know best; in fact, he almost certainly does know best about the technicalities and the scientific aspects of the problem; but what he does not know best, and what he will never know if he is cocooned and insulated from public criticism and comment, is what people are prepared to put up with in the way of pollution or what price they are prepared to pay for clean air and clean water. These are value judgments and in the end they can be made only by the public.
My plea tonight, therefore, is to restore the mandate of public opinion in pollution control and to give less ground to those technical experts who believe that they know all of it and that what they know is best.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) is to be congratulated on his perspicacity and foresight in realising that the remaining stage of the Local Government Bill might terminate early and on getting in his bid for an Adjournment debate. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the subject of pollution in the wider context of the environment.
I am grateful that in this, one of the last Adjournment debates before the Session ends, my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Environment is with us to answer this short debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his elegant sartorial attire which is surely suitable for a Minister replying to a debate on a subject such as the environment.
One of the most heartwarming trends in recent years has been that the environment has suddenly become one of the foremost political issues on a par with the equally important issues of employment, education and the economy. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East that it would be dangerous to try to overstate the case for the environment. All we are saying is that it should be treated as an equal and as a serious political issue.
If I may add to what my hon. Friend said, I think that one of the reasons why an increasing number of people have suddenly begun to realise the importance of the environment is the relatively small island in which we live and its densely populated nature. I do not want to bore the House with too many statistics tonight, but there is an interesting comparison that should be made. The USSR has approximately four times the population of the United Kingdom, yet it covers no less than 8·6 million square miles while the United Kingdom, a small island by any standards, has a land mass of less than 100,000 square miles. That means that it is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
I understand that, on average, we have about 600 people to every square mile in the United Kingdom, but even that conceals a more serious state of affairs, because in England, the largest part of the United Kingdom, the average den-

sity of population is fast approaching 1,000 to each square mile. But it is not even as simple as that, because within England no less than one-third of our population lives on only 2½ per cent. of the land in our seven great conurbations —and to take the extreme case, in the greater London area, rivers and parks included, people are squashed together, on an average, at no fewer than 12,000 to every square mile. That is equalled only by Gibraltar, which has 24,000 people, excluding monkeys, living on only two square miles. Thus land is at a premium, and the way we use our land is vital. Thus, the environment should be treated as seriously as the economy or, to put it another way, conservation is as important as commercialism.
There are one or two specific points that I want to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister. I am absolutely convinced that one of the problems that we have to tackle with greater zeal is the question of the pollution caused by the motor vehicle. I have the dubious distinction of representing a constituency in the north-west part of Birmingham that is almost unique in the sense that it is almost totally encircled by urban motorways. It has the M5 down the west side, the M6 down the north and north-east side and the Aston Expressway coming in at the south-east. I am tempted to say that this is one of the major environmental problems that I face. My hon. Friend has been to Handsworth and he will know that about the only environmental problem that we do not have in that Mecca of municipal magnificence is oil pollution on the beaches.
My point is that with the advent of the urban motorway—and there will be an increasing number of urban motorways, thanks to the Government's forward-rolling motorway programme—it is essential to think in terms of the people who live near these vast flows of traffic. With the greatest respect, I say that as a matter of urgency the Government must come to terms with the problem and decide, for example, what the lead content of petrol that we are prepared to permit in our motor vehicles should be.
Another question that we shall have to face is the position of the emission pipe in the exhaust system of a motor vehicle. Obviously we have become trained to


accept that this should be at the rear, and low down, pointing rearwards, but we may have to redesign motor vehicles so that the emission pipe outlet is at the top of the vehicle at the rear, facing upwards.
The second specific question is the increasing number of smokeless zones that we are creating, quite properly, in our towns. Birmingham has a progressive record in this respect.
There is one parochial point that I should particularly like the Minister to take up, although I realise that it might be a matter more for his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development. He will know that under the Clean Air Act, 1956—and I mention that for a particular reason: it is one of the first environmental Measures that this House passed and, although the environment may be new to the public, its problems are not unknown to this House; indeed, they go back at least 16 years—the right exists to grant to people who are changing to smokeless fires in smokeless zones seven-tenths of the cost of the conversion.
I have had a case in my constituency involving somebody who was presented with a statement by the council saying that the council was agreeable to paying seven-tenths of the bill for converting the fire to smokeless fuel, and the person concerned, an old-age pensioner, assumed that the figure which the council gave for the conversion would be the amount actually charged. But when the builder's bill came in, this old-age pensioner found that the cost of conversion was considerably higher, and my constituent is having a great deal of difficulty in paying the bill.
Will my hon. Friend pass on to the Minister the necessity for a clear statement on an estimate that it is only an estimate of the cost and not necessarily the cost at which the builder will undertake the work?

Mr. Charles Simeons: Will not my hon. Friend agree that there is also the cost of running the fire to be taken into account? Smokeless fuels are far more expensive than the orthodox type of fuel, and whatever help is given is not really adequate for old-age pensioners. Further, those people who have their houses converted to electricity or to

natural gas often discover that, having used the electricity or gas freely, they get a bill for £100 or so at the end of a quarter and they cannot pay. Whilst they are arguing, another bill, perhaps for £50, comes in and then the supply is disconnected. The electricity and gas authorities tell us that they cannot reconnect without a reconnection charge. This seems to be an insoluable problem that we ought to bear in mind.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend has made a very serious point, and I certainly agree with what he has said. However, I want to confine myself to the strict limits of this Adjournment debate.
The next point, which is not a parochial one but is a national point of some consequence, is one that I have raised with my hon. Friend not only at the party conference but also in a Question in the House last week. I am absolutely convinced that we shall have to limit loads and lengths of lorries that use certain roads in certain towns, cities and villages. I do not believe that the main argument should centre around whether or not this country should permit 40-ton lorries to use the roads, because they do on the Continent and more specifically within the countries of the existing Six in the EEC.
My view is quite simple, and it is this. The length and load of a lorry that ought to be allowed to use a road should be based on the design of the road itself. I do not doubt that there are certain motorways in our country that could take 40-tonners. In that sense, the environmental problem is not whether 40-tonners should be allowed to use certain roads but whether, recognising that we have to take a certain volume of goods from point A to point B, we should do it with 40 32- tonners or 32 40-tonners. I would rather have fewer larger vehicles, provided those larger vehicles can use our roads in safety.
But the point I make is that, whether we allow 40-tonners on certain of our roads or not, we must forbid even 10- tonners to use some of the narrow streets in our towns and villages. This is necessary, I am convinced, not only for reasons of safety and the need to reduce atmospheric pollution; it is necessary to prevent the inherent damage which can be done to interesting old buildings in our towns and villages.


I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will move Government policy in that direction. I am convinced that it must be done by national regulations so that the rule is uniform throughout the country. I realise that my hon. Friend disagrees, and he will rightly point out that local authorities already have the power, if they wish, to ban lorries of certain lengths and loads from using certain streets. But if it remains only their prerogative to introduce such regulations it will be done slowly, far too late and haphazardly. I urge my hon. Friend to move some way in that direction.
I come next to the problem of the disgracefully dismal, drab and ugly scenes to be found in far too many of our towns and cities. One of our most wonderful achievements in the past 27 years has been the creation of national parks, a scheme to preserve some of the most beautiful parts of our countryside. By and large that policy has been successful. We now need a concerted effort to give a face-lift to, or to remove altogether, the ugliness of some of the worst industrial scars which still remain in our urban landscape.
Why, for example, do not the Government establish a policy for the creation of urban parks? Why not tackle some of the worst areas in certain of our conurbations and show what can be done to make a dramatic improvement with but small expenditure? It is a disgrace to any nation which calls itself civilised still to tolerate some of the environmental squalor in which far too many of our families still have to do their best to survive.
Incidentally, I am personally most grateful to the Government for their acceptance of my suggestion to make next year national tree planting year. I realise that my hon. Friends may laugh at that, and I know that in the Smoking Room I am now referred to as "The doggies' delight". But I believe that by the planting of trees we can do much to cover up some of the necessary urban eyesores in our towns and cities.
Trees are not just beautiful objects in themselves. One can use trees to cover up industrial eyesores, one can use trees to cover waste and derelict land and, last but certainly not least, one can use trees as a valuable sound baffle between the

motor vehicle on the one hand and the pedestrian or resident on the other hand.
The British people are becoming more discerning about the sort of areas in which they live. Yesteryear, they were prepared to pay the price of the belching factory chimney because it meant jobs, and if the chimney was not belching, in all probability there was unemployment. Now, however, the public are more sophisticated. They realise that they can still have their jobs yet the factory chimney need no longer belch.
The statisticians tell us that the great majority of families in this country now have a car. Now that more than every other family has a car, an increasing number of the public are demanding that cars should be quieter, cleaner and safer.
I want to finish by paying a tribute to the Government, a tribute that I do not believe is too fulsome but is, deserved. They have recognised the importance of the environment and so structured their Administration that they have set up a Department to try to cope administratively with the many problems related to it. I do not doubt, nor do I try to conceal, that to protect, improve, conserve or preserve our environment will cost money. If we are to say that electric pylons should not strangle or straddle our countryside, we must be prepared to say that it will cost more money to put the cables underground; if we are to say that we should preserve more of our old buildings in our towns and villages—and, in view of the rate at which old buildings are being demolished, I believe that we and our children and our children's children will rue the day when we allowed so much of our architectural heritage to be razed to the ground by the bulldozer—we must be prepared to pay what I believe to be a modest price. If we are to have fume-free vehicles, it will cost us money.
The purpose of the debate is to recognise those problems and ask our Government to consider the environment on an equal footing with the other pressing political and social problems. I have every confidence that they will do so and that they have the administrative machinery with which to try to achieve what an increasing number of our people want—a pleasant, healthy, decent environment in which to live and work.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Charles Simeons: I am sure that everyone will join by hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) for choosing the subject of the environment for debate. I am glad for a number of reasons. First, it is one on which people are focussing their attention. Secondly, it is one on which there are many misunderstandings. These surround the purpose of change which I believe my hon. Friend the Minister has in mind. Lastly, we want to consider the consequence of the action which is called for upon ordinary people.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said on a number of occasions that polluters must pay for their pollution. I have heard no one who disagrees with him. The faces of harassed housewives who have to clean their children's clothes on the beaches light up, and they think that that statement is wonderful. But the cost will not be borne by the companies or even the local authorities involved in disgorging, because both have no money of their own, except a few companies with large investments, and the only way in which they can obtain the money to carry out treatment is from the public. Therefore, the cost of a cleaner environment in round terms is 4p on a packet of crisps. But I am certain that that price is worth while. I am equally certain that my hon. Friend the Minister has plans which will do much to meet that end.
Many people try to make out that industry has been doing nothing about pollution; but pollution treatment is not new. In my constituency, where we have the motor industry using cyanide for plating and have light engineering, chemical companies, and a number of other concerns, businesses have combined to put in treatment plants which, when coupled with the services of the Luton sewage works, produce an effluent which provides London with its drinking water. Fortunately, it has a further treatment after that treatment at Luton, but very few people in Luton realise when they pull the plug each night what a service they are doing for those who drink water in London.
But the services for providing this are rather confused. I used to regard water as something which came out of a tap clean and, when it became dirty, one pulled out the plug and it disappeared into the ground for good. That is not so, of course. There is a cycle in which water is used a number of times. It is said that from the source of the Thames until it flows out to sea the same water is drunk by six different people—being purified in between, of course.
To carry out this immensely important operation, we have an enormous number of authorities. There are 29 river authorities, 1,391 local authorities which are sewerage authorities and 260 statutory water undertakings. Therefore it is remarkable that the standard is as good as it is. We have water and effluent controlled by no one Ministry. What is more, statutory water undertakings are under no compulsion to provide processed water for industry. If they stopped doing it, I am not sure what industry would do. There is a basis of charges which contributes to the cost. But there is no charge for water which is clean and discharged direct to rivers.
The first stage of change was the passing of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act. I am not sure that industry is truly aware of its implications. I understand from local authorities and river authorities that all that a company has to do is to notify the authority that it intends to move something. The authority cannot stop it from doing so. But if the company moves it and pollution results, there is a heavy penalty. There is a list of exemptions. Large numbers of people believe that this exempts them from the consequences. It does not. It merely exempts them from having to notify the authority. The consequences remain. If the consequences arise and pollution occurs, the company meets its just fate. But large numbers of people do not seem to appreciate that.
Enormous gaps remain. Large numbers of companies have toxic material. I will not venture to say how they disposed of it in the past, but they are embarrassed today about disposing of it and the eagerness with which some contractors moved it before has evaporated. Therefore, one great gap remains in that we have to find quickly a means whereby


organics and other toxic wastes, especially solid wastes, can be disposed of without harm to the environment.
The proposals contained in the White Paper dealing with the reorganisation of water resources and sewerage are extremely good. As the House knows, they divide the country into 10 regional water authorities. The merit of 10 different regions is, first, that they are big; secondly, that the state of rivers in different parts of the country is different and they can work at different rates; and, thirdly, they concentrate resources, which is vital.
The proposals will cut out overlap. We have all seen cases of two authorities, both ill-equipped, trying to measure the same substances often without the necessary apparatus to do so. The proposals will also provide a career structure which will revolutionise the whole water cycle. It will not be long before universities offer courses so that people can be trained in water management as opposed to one of the branches of it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells us that sewerage has not changed for 100 years. Other people whom I know remind me that sex has not changed either. Both seem to work fairly well. Therefore, I would suggest that while we want to bring the techniques of the chemical engineer into this field, we want to do it carefully and to make certain that the innovations we introduce will not be susceptible to disruption, because most of us know that, bulky as they are, the average sewerage works can meet disaster, but if one has a neat automatic plant and someone does something unexpected, calamity will ensue and the people over a large area will be fully aware of what has happened.
Industry must make itself aware of the probable new form of charges, firstly that they will be charged for the water they use; next that they will be charged for the water they discharge, and if any subsequent treatment is required, provided it has been agreed that they can discharge anyway, then they will be charged at cost for this. This I believe will revolutionise people's thinking towards water. It will give companies opportunity, provided they know what the policy is—and, as I have suggested, this will vary with each regional water autho-

rity—to budget ahead and to decide the extent to which they should install plant themselves and to what extent they should install recycling equipment. Superimposed on top of this there will be greater necessity—and this will be a rewarding pastime for local authorities and the regional water authorities in congested areas—to set up their own treatment plants so that small quantities of toxic material can be delivered there and treated in bulk centrally and much more cheaply than if each company were to have its own treatment plant; but this will only deal with small quantities, because the cost would be too great otherwise.
All this, in my view, adds up to an on-cost on industry. Exactly what it will be is difficult to say, but I hope my hon. Friend is seeking statistical advice on this from industry, because it will alter our whole competitive position if we are not careful. I was at the EEC the other day, and those whom I saw there spoke very well not only of my hon. Friend but also of the work being done in this country, and they gave the impression, which I am sure is right, that we are ahead in our thinking and in many of the things we are doing. This is fine, but the great problem is that if we proceed too fast we may well put ourselves at competitive disadvantage with companies overseas, and if, on the other hand, we try to clean up the north too fast we may then, in cur attempt to make the Mersey like the Thames, find that the chemical companies will leave the Mersey. I think it is absolutely vital that we have sufficient information so the charges are realistic, as well as compelling people to do those things which are necessary.
There are two points I should like to put to my hon. Friend. I would not expect him to answer one of them tonight, but I hope that as soon as he goes to get his dinner—I am sorry he has been delayed—he will have a chance to think about this and go on to give a great deal of thought to it, and that is the composition of the Central Council.
As I understand it, it is to consist of the 10 chairmen of the regional water authorities, boosted up by one or two other knowledgeable people. This, I think, in principle is all right, but in practice it will have no executive powers; nor will it have any knowledge, if my


hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend are to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, as I believe they will, and as they have to now. It is vital that there is some central organisation which is detached from the Government and not under the Government's control or under my hon. Friend's thumb, and to which people will go and from which the Central Council can obtain its guidance. Here I would like to see the council supported by the Water Pollution Research Laboratories and the Water Resources Board. I have acquainted myself with what these people are doing, and I believe that the knowledge which they have and the advice which they can give is absolutely vital to central water authorities because in the absence of it a lot of men will have to do what my hon. Friend tells them because they will not know any better. I hope that he will give them the tools to get on and manage and that they will be given freedom. I am fearful that that freedom may be removed.
Lastly, I have received leaflets—it is difficult to confirm their total validity—from the fishing fraternity asking me to raise a number of matters. The concern of the fishermen is that when the reorganisation takes place, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to bring common law actions against those who pollute but have received consents from the regional water authorities, the compensation being obtained from the regional water authorities.
I appreciate that if companies are to disclose what they are doing, they will wish that information to be kept relatively confidential. They will not wish to disclose what they are doing and then be forced to produce the information in court where their competitors will be able to get hold of it. But I do not believe that it is solely knowledge of the chemistry that makes a process successful; it is the know how about applying the chemistry. But it is a logical argument, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to set the fishermens' minds at rest, as I am sure he will.
I hope that companies will bear in mind that each year they have their books audited and that the auditors tell the shareholders how their company is being run. Nobody ever tells them what has gone down the drain, and the amount of money going down the drain in some

areas is probably very large. If it is a precious metal, it is probably recovered, but there is a halfway house. In future, putting everything down the drain will be expensive and companies should now be looking around to decide what is the best course for them to take.

9.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I join with my other hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) on having chosen this subject to bring to the attention of the House and on his foresight in achieving it at the end of the Local Government Bill. He made a speech which was thoughtful, philosophical and constructive, as all his speeches are, but I do not think that he will expect me to deal in detail with all his many observations.
However, I was impressed by his suggestion that some of the priorities that should be before us in the management of the environment and the fight against pollution were, first, human life—I am sure that he was right to say that that must come first—secondly, the effects of pollution and environmental mismanagement on the fauna and flora and ecological systems, for if they are destroyed they are almost impossible to replace; and thirdly, the cleaning up of dereliction and the eyesores of the past. I agree with his order of priorities, although I might put it slightly differently.
One of the functions of the Department of the Environment is a defensive function; that is to say, we have to protect the environment wherever it is good. At the same time, we have an offensive function in that we must make the environment better wherever it is not good enough. In our policies we attempt to discharge both major rôles.
We defend the environment where it is good by maintaining and, where possible, extending the green belt, by protecting the countryside, through good planning, against urban sprawl and, wherever possible, from too many over, head wires. We protect and conserve our historic towns where possible by bypassing them so that heavy vehicles shall not damage historic streets. We protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of scientific interest, the forests, and


so on. So there is indeed a defensive rôle which we must carry out.
However, it is not sufficient for us to protect only the agreeable surroundings of those who have a good environment. Far more important is our task in improving the environment where it is bad. This means that for the ordinary man we must improve housing. I believe that the improvement grants policy, which has brought enormous betterment to many of our towns and cities, is an aspect of positively improving the environment; similarly, through general area improvement grants, the cleaning-up of derelict land and the clearance of slums. These are ways in which we attack the environment where it is bad.
My hon. Friend, whose knowledge on this subject is very great, is right that we must tackle pollution at its source—where our rivers, our air and our land have been poisoned in the past—and improve it for the future.
In mentioning the future, I come to my hon. Friend's point about thinking of the next generation. Very few of us in political life can afford to think much further ahead than five or 10 years, because those are the periods not only of Parliaments, but of reasonable rolling programmes during which policies can be worked out. But we must also have in mind the generations of tomorrow. One thinks of this particularly when one recognises that the depletion of resources on this planet is a very real problem and that pollution could, if it were not checked, make it very difficult for future generations to enjoy even the high standards of living that we know today.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) that Governments should now give to the environment the same priority and attention that they give to economics. My hon. Friend made one particular reference which I noted. He said that as environmentalists all we ask is that conservation should be as important as commercialism. I agree that that should be so, and I think that in our policies we have carried out his wishes.
I should like to deal with a few of the more specific points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for

Luton (Mr. Simeons) was particularly interested in water policy. He spoke of the new National Water Council which we propose to establish in the course of reorganising the water industry. Our intention is that the National Water Council should consist of the chairmen of the nine or 10 regional water authorities, if Parliament agrees that this shall be done. However, my hon. Friend is not quite right in saying that we intend to flesh that out, so to speak, with only two or three more people. On the contrary, we expect the National Water Council to have on it formidable representatives of industry, of agriculture, of the consumer, who must always be with us, and of the whole sphere of amenity, recreation and environmental protection.
I assure my hon. Friend that the National Water Council, far from being a toothless paper wonder, will be an instrument of real significance to which the Secretary of State and central Government will wish to look for advice and help on many occasions. I assure my hon. Friend that some national research capability, possibly based on the Water Research Association, certainly having the most intimate links with the WPRL, will be available to the National Water Council and to the Secretary of State so that some independent assessment of both technical and scientific developments and of development itself can be made.

Mr. Simeons: Will my hon. Friend think about the point that if these bodies are seen to be advising him and the council at the same time, they will lose some of their credibility because they cannot serve two masters? He must know that there are occasions when he must act in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Mr. Griffiths: I take my hon. Friend's point and I will see that he receives a copy of one of the many consultation papers we have been putting out on this matter so that he can pursue it with me on another occasion.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the concern of anglers lest under the new arrangements they should lose their common law right of taking action against polluters or against those who damage their interests. I am glad that he raised the matter because there has been quite unnecessary misunderstanding about it. The issue is very simple. We


are trying to clean the rivers. In order to do that, we have suggested that a number of measures will require to be taken—for example, that all trade wastes going into sewers shall be brought under control; that the discharges from industry to estuaries shall be brought under control, as recommended by the Jeger Commission; that more effective action should be taken where sanitary appliances discharge direct to rivers and estuaries; and a whole series of other measures. But one of the more important measures must be that if industry is putting increasingly complex, toxic wastes into water we must monitor more effectively their composition and effect on the water.
The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East raised about confidentiality immediately arises when one seeks to control and survey the wastes which industry puts into water. As my hon. Friend said, the day has gone when industry could reasonably say that industrial espionage could be conducted by people with metal cups collecting the effluent from the bottom of the river.
The dilemma is this. If the fact was published that industry was putting certain forms of chemical waste into a river, although the river authority might well be perfectly satisfied that, in spite of the waste, it was within the capacity of the river to purify itself it is possible —I put it no higher—that in these days of environmental zeal, sometimes excessive zeal, a local person, reading for the first time of some complex substance—diocyanate or something of that kind—might take fright without fully understanding the situation and seek in a magistrates' court an injunction against the firm. On occasion frivolous law suits might be instituted against a firm and conceivably a magistrates' court would grant an injunction and the whole industry might be brought to a standstill, with the men being laid off and production halted, simply because of a misunderstanding about what the chemical effluent amounted to.
The dilemma—and it must be described as a dilemma—is simply this. If we say "Let us be done with confidentiality, let us publish or require to be published all the technical data about all the effluents", it is possible that,

through an excess of zeal and misunderstanding, a common law action would be started which was wholly unnecessary and which did damage to the industry and the community. We are seeking, in most detailed discussions with industry and all the other interests, to meet my hon. Friend's point, namely, to end confidentiality and to require total disclosure, but not in a fashion which will lead to frivolous litigation under common law which might damage the economy. This is a very real problem and that is precisely why we have made no decisions. The anglers can be assured that their interests are very much in our minds. If we want to end confidentiality we must give a measure of protection to industry against the frivolous injunctions that would bring it to a halt.
I have gone into this in some detail because there is much misunderstanding in the angling world. The consultation process in which we are now engaged will enable us to listen to and to learn from expressions of opinion from the angling world and all others. Only at the end of the day, which may well be some time from now, will we reach a conclusion and publish it. Until that time, I assure my hon. Friend that the angling interests are perfectly safe.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. It is also worth making the point that under the common law only those with an interest in the river, such as anglers, have the right to bring an action, whereas if there are effective statutory controls with no confidentiality, with disclosure and therefore the right of public objection, everybody with an interest in the river, including the factory which disposes of its waste and also creates jobs, will have a right to be heard.

Mr. Griffiths: Absolutely, and much more effective invigilation and enforcement would be secured if we came to that decision. I hope the House will accept that "consultation" is precisely that. It is not the Government laying down what is to be done but rather the Government seeking the opinions of all concerned. I wish that those who read our consultation documents would recognise them for what they are, namely, examples of open government, seeking people's opinion and would not, as so often is the case, take counsel only of


their fears and anxieties and assume the worst instead of coming to us and discussing the problems forthrightly. The anglers will be coming to meet the Secretary of State and myself to discuss this matter, I think next Wednesday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth raised the question of vehicle discharges to air and vehicle emissions. As he will know, since 1st January this year all new petrol engines built in this country have had to be equipped with a device for recycling crankcase gases that prevents their being vented direct to the atmosphere. This action, which the Government have taken, is expected to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles in Britain by 25 per cent.
We have also accepted the ECE regulations, which when they are effective—which I hope will not be long—will mean reductions of about 30 per cent. in carbon monoxide emissions and 10 per cent. in hydrocarbon emissions. On lead, which my hon. Friend was right to mention, the Secretary of State has already announced that the maximum permissible level must be reduced from the present figure progressively until, within three or four years from now, it will be roughly half the present permitted level. From October, 1972, all new diesel engines, in particular those powering heavy lorries, will be required to conform to a new British Standard substantially reducing the emissions of black smoke to a point where, when the vehicles are properly driven and maintained, the smoke will be virtually invisible.
My hon. Friend also asked about smokeless zones and clean air policy. I will write to him about the particular point he has raised, but I am sure that he and the House will be glad to know that we are now able to make smoke orders in this country at a record level. Not only in London but in Birmingham. Leeds, Manchester and in most of the great conurbations the clean air policy is now rapidly going forward. Through the splendid efforts of the Northern Panel of the Clean Air Council, of which I am chairman, as is soon to be announced, more and more local authorities in the North and particularly in the North-East are joining in this policy, so that by the end of this decade I have the real hope that all our major conurbations will have

a degree of clean air, free at least from domestic smoke, comparable with that of London today. If we can achieve that cleaning up, we shall really have made a contribution to a cleaner environment.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am delighted to hear that. My hon. Friend has started at the right end by tackling the major local authorities in the big conurbations, but some of the smaller towns near large conurbations are very tardy if they happen to be on the windward side of the concentrations of population. Is it not equally important that they should be made to toe the line?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, and I think that I know the community that my hon. Friend has in mind. There is no reason why any local authority suffering heavy concentrations of ground level smoke from domestic grates should not introduce smokeless zones. There is plenty of the necessary fuel and the approval of my Department would be forthcoming immediately an authority put in such a request. I hope that my hon. Friend will press on his local authorities, including the one that I suspect he has in mind, the wishes of the Government that they should get on with this programme quickly in the interests of their people.
My hon. Friend also spoke with some passion, as he has done many times before, about the problems of the heavy vehicle. Restrictions alone cannot be the answer. There must also be the facilities which will make the restrictions tolerable. That is why we now have the rapid increase in the road building programme. We are increasingly bypassing the towns and villages and are ensuring that, by the middle 1970s, all the major ports will be adequately linked directly with the motorway system.
We have at the same time embarked on the provision of a national network, costing £50 million, of heavy lorry parks, getting the big vehicles out of the towns to where they are safe and secure and the drivers have decent accommodation. About 50 or 60 of them will be ready in five years' time.
I agree that it must be our policy to make the large vehicle cleaner by controlling emissions and to make it quieter. We have put in hand a quiet lorry programme and we hope in five


years to be producing at least the prototype of heavy lorries which will make no more noise than the Mini of today.
At the same time, we have to keep the large vehicle out of places where it has no business to be. Those who demand a massive and instant diversion of road haulage, for example on to the railways, must reflect on the facts. The average haul of over three tons in this country is only 25 miles and most lorry journeys do not start or finish at or near a rail terminal. There is no question in the Government's mind of massacring the railways. We are aware of the advantages of the railway train.
Sympathetic though I am to route discrimination, it would nevertheless be bad to harass our road haulage industry with regulations which have no bearing on health or safety and which could offer only a minimal gain for the railways. By the middle 1970s we expect to have put into practice a policy of route discrimination. This will keep the large vehicle in its rightful place, where there is room and need for it, while excluding it from places where it has no business to be, particularly the narrow streets and the country lanes. But in the process we must avoid impractical restrictions on farming operations, for example, and recognise that manufacturers, operators, wholesalers and shopkeepers—not to mention their customers—are entitled to expect that their activities in towns will not be thrown into confusion by ill-thought-out and premature restrictions. I accept that we cannot go on as we are, with heavy vehicles thundering through the narrow streets of our towns—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of roads and heavy traffic, will he comment on the ambition of certain local highway authorities—county councils and borough councils—to demolish large residential areas of their towns in order to build what they call inner relief roads or inner link roads which, far from removing the pollution from town centres, which I know is the ambition and the the policy of the present Government, brings faster and heavier traffic into those very areas from which we want to remove it? I refer to a proposal being considered at this time by the borough of Macclesfield to drive an east-west link

road through a residential part of the town, so removing many amenities. The officials concerned seem determined to push the project through, despite vast opposition by civic authorities and residents in the area.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that if they have the opposition of my hon. Friend they will be very well aware of it. He will, however, understand that I cannot comment on a case of which I have no immediate knowledge. But on the general point that roads can be indiscriminately pushed through residential areas at considerable loss to amenity, I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend.
If we are to produce decent, or at least more tolerable, conditions in our towns we simply must accept further limitations on times and places of deliveries. Buses also will need, and the Government will see that they get, continuing help in town and country alike. We shall have to encourage local authorities to put in more peripheral car parks, and, where possible, pedestrian precincts, and at the same time to enforce and strengthen rules against selfish parking.
I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not deal with the many other points raised by my hon. Friend. I note what he said about urban parks, but I must remind him of derelict land clearance, the eyesore programme, our efforts on twilight housing and general area improvement, the national tree-planting scheme and the new water policy, where we shall require the use of water space not solely for recreation but for urban amenity, for example in the form of water parks. These measures provide local authorities with ample opportunities to provide the very urban parks about which my hon. Friend so eloquently spoke.
In conclusion, I return to the thoughtful speech with which my hon. Friend launched the debate. I think that what he sought to do was to take the broad perspective of the organisation of the fight against pollution, and those who study his speech in HANSARD will recognise that there was much wisdom in it. I offer only these perspectives which my right hon. Friend and I have arrived at over the last two years. The first, very simply, is that, contrary to all the alarming headlines, we in this country are not


losing the battle to protect the environment. I cannot say that we have won the day, but we are more than holding our own. I know that some pronouncements say that we are cosmically heading into an environmental apocalypse, that the insects will die, the ice caps will melt and we shall either drown in sewage or choke to death in sulphur dioxide. I do not dismiss those projections but I want to know more about them.
The fact is that our air is generally cleaner, that our rivers on the whole are a good deal less polluted and that our industrial effluent and toxic wastes, although much greater in volume and more complex in character, are on the whole less dangerous and less offensive than any of these things were 50, 20 or 10 years ago. I do not say that we have won the battle, but I say that we are more than holding our own and that the battle can and should be won.
My second perspective is that we must reject as misleading the false idea that growth is the source of all evil and that economic advance is the creator of pollution. If our pollution has become more acute, though not necessarily more unmanageable, over recent years, that is because our rate of economic growth has been not too high but too low. We have not had the resources to build quieter engines, to clean up the slums more rapidly and to make the rivers more pure. The Department of the Environment needs the resources in order to do those things.
My last perspective, and I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to agree with this, is that no nation is any longer an environmental island. We all share the great common estates of the sea and the air. Therefore, within the new European Economic Community there is a prospect for us to build an environment policy that will tackle pollution and improve the quality of life at a much broader level than ever before. I think that the House will accept that within the EEC there are many mansions. I have always believe that the EEC meant a European environmental community as much as anything else.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having opened this wide-ranging debate.

I shall, as I promised earlier, have great pleasure in studying more carefully my hon. Friend's wise words in HANSARD tomorrow.

FACTORY, SOUTH SHIELDS (CLOSURE)

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I make no apology for introducing a subject of deep concern to my constituency. I thank the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for taking his place in the Chamber and enabling me to introduce this subject in a useful way. I am sorry that notice inevitably was short. Nevertheless, it is of value to raise the matter tonight.
On Friday, 20th October, the United Biscuit Company announced the closure of Messrs. Wright's factory in South Shields by 31st March of next year. As a result, 823 people will be put out of work. Of that number, 150 are male full-time workers and 669 are women, two-thirds of whom are part-time workers. However, the closure has to be seen in relation to the serious unemployment situation which exists in South Shields. I only have to quote some of the latest figures to show the seriousness of the situation. In South Shields alone some 4,000 persons are out of work. That figure includes some 2,900 wholly unemployed men. The latest figure, announced a few days ago in answer to a Question, reveals that in South Shields there are well over 1,000 men and over 200 women who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks. Not many fewer have been out of work for more than a year. In the slightly larger area which will be the South Shields district when local government reform takes place there are well over 7,000 out of work.
These terrifying figures mean that 5 per cent. of all the men in South Shields are out of work. The announcement is one more blow to the many South Shields has received recently. The prospects are grim, because there are threats of further redundancies in several factories in the area.
The firm with which I am immediately concerned is a long-established local firm which some years ago acquired its own trade outlet. It became linked with Cans of Carlisle, a well-known biscuit firm, and Kemp's of Grimsby. About 18 months ago it was taken over by Cavenham Limited which, in turn, was taken over in July of this year by United Biscuit Company. Following these two takeovers, the anxiety in the town can be well understood.
The United Biscuit Company, whose Press release I have here and some of whose directors I met at the time of the announcement, claim that the firm operates in South Shields in a very old factory, with old plant and equipment, and on a difficult site for development. I accept some of that; it is a fair criticism of the past operators of the firm that too little of the firm's profits was ploughed back into renewal and redevelopment. The local employees strongly resent some of the implications of that statement and point to a very successful recent trading experience. They claim that the firm is at present running on a profitable basis and that recent output and sales figures are a record. Not long ago extra hands were taken on.
There is, naturally, strong feeling in the town at the fact that this apparently successful firm, which was taken over only a few months ago, is to be closed down only a few months later, and this in a special development area.
What are the facts? I want first to try to enlist the help of the Minister in establishing them, with regard both to the financial and trading position of the firm and to its immediate prospects ahead. Have we not a right to some kind of independent assessment of the real situation? We do not feel that we can simply accept the situation as stated by the firm. We have a right—the employees have a right—to some independent assessment. Will the Minister help us to get it?
The second point of particular importance concerns the effect of take-overs of this sort. It surely should not be accepted that a take-over can be, as it were, approved or allowed to go through without some kind of effective assurance about the future employment prospects of the workers in the factories concerned, especially when they are situated in

special development areas, in respect of which, by their designation, the Government accept special concern and responsibility.
I ask the Minister whether he can offer any proposals under which suggestions of take-over can be examined, preferably before and not after they go through—as in this case—in order to obtain clear assurances about employment prospects. That is critical in a town like ours.
Naturally enough, I raised this matter when I met the directors of the firm concerned. I tried to secure some offer in respect of future prospects for development that might ease the situation, but the directors were unable to offer any. I am aware that they have carried out developments in other parts of the North-East, in Teesside, but in respect of this factory they could offer no immediate alternative. Even if we were to accept the unsuitability of the existing factory; with all the assistance available for new developments in the area, I tried to secure some undertaking from the firm to consider the question in terms of new development; to offer some development even on a modest scale. I was not able to obtain any clear assurance.
I must make it clear that the firm is making offers of some financial compensation for those affected—possibly beyond its legal responsibility. Nevertheless, the crucial issue is surely the question of responsibility for employment. I feel that there is an analogy between the position of a local authority that carries out, or proposes to carry out, a major redevelopment or slum clearance and the position in the case of this factory. Before a major redevelopment scheme is sanctioned the local authority has to accept full responsibility for the rehousing of the people affected. When a takeover that affects firms in special development areas is proposed, or even when it is carried through, should not a comparable kind of assurance or guarantee be required from the firm concerned before any sanction is given? Why should not a firm that is undertaking a project of this sort accept this as a financial responsibility, just as a local authority undertaking major redevelopments has to accept rather similar responsibilities?

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I feel that these are reasonable requests to put to the Minister. I assure him that there is very strong feeling indeed in the town, and properly so, about the situation and I ask sincerely for his co-operation and for that of his Department both in the matter of the factual assessment of the situation and in trying to secure adequate guarantees in cases of this kind.

10.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on the alertness with which he has secured this Adjournment debate. He will appreciate that the very speed with which he brought this most important matter to the attention of the House means that perhaps the answer I shall give to him will not he in as much detail as I would wish. But undoubtedly, if I am unable to satisfy him on all the points he has raised, he may rest assured that we shall be able to pursue this matter in another way.
I can well understand the anxiety which is caused by a closure such as this in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Of course, there are many parts of the country where it would raise a much smaller ripple—indeed, parts of the country where there is a great demand for labour. This is not the case in South Shields which is a special development area, and we entirely accept the very serious unemployment situation prevailing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency —an unemployment situation which, he will know only too well, has been continuing for a very long time and is a deep-seated problem of over-dependence perhaps in the past on the heavy capital industries.
Having said that, I should put the unemployment position in a little more perspective by saying this. It was encouraging—I put it no higher—to see that in the overall Tyneside travel-to-work area there was a fall in male and female unemployment in the last month. The figures went from 10·6 per cent. male

unemployment in September, 1972, to 9·7 per cent. unemployment in October, 1972. I do not want to over-emphasise this because there is a great deal more work to be done. Also there was a modest but nevertheless encouraging increase in the number of unfilled vacancies in the Tyneside travel-to-work area for males rising from 1,077 in September to 1,220 in October. These may he straws in the wind, but it should be said because otherwise one might get the impression quite falsely that all is complete doom and depression in this region, which is not wholly true.
As the hon. Gentleman said, United Biscuits Ltd. took over the biscuit interests of Cavenham Ltd. in July, 1972, and in the process acquired the South Shields factories formerly known as Wright's in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In the process of that they took over Carr's in Carlisle and Kemp's in Grimsby. Therefore, it was part of a fairly broad takeover exercise. The effect of the closure which has been recently announced is to create a situation in which ultimately, when the closure finally takes effect next year, there will be, as the hon. Gentleman said, just over 800 redundancies of which a little more than half are female part-time employees.
The company has said that, although it is its group policy to offer alternative employment within United Biscuits and to give as much warning as possible to those affected, it is not expected that it will be possible to offer continued employment to more than a very few employees. However, as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to acknowledge, United Biscuits will, I understand, offer its company compensation arrangements, which are considerably in excess of those laid down by the Redundancy Payments Act, even though the employees have been with United Biscuits for such a short time. That should be said in the company's defence.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman also that the company is working closely with the Department of Employment, which was officially informed of the closure on 20th October. I believe that the national officer of the General and Municipal Workers Union was informed on 19th October and the local union representatives and employees were informed on the 20th. I assure the hon. Gentleman,


on behalf of my colleagues in the Department of Employment, that they are well in the picture and will do everything they possibly can to assist the workers in the firm.
What is of significance in this closure, however, is that, on the information before us, it is quite possible—I do not think I should put it higher than that—even if the takeover by United Biscuits had not taken place, the South Shields factory would have had to close since, on the face of it, it did not appear viable. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was an old-fashioned works, and to a large extent the site precluded modernisation and expansion. I am informed that it had been making considerable losses in the years preceding this merger. I am informed also that employment there was reduced by about 300 in the earlier part of this year.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Undoubtedly it has had a varying record, with periods of quite good profits in recent years and, on the other hand, some recent losses. But it then appeared to be on the upgrade again, and not long ago extra labour was taken on. This shows how necessary it is to try to establish the true facts. This is where I should like the hon. Gentleman's help.

Mr. Grant: These are matters of fact which we shall have to endeavour to discover. I was merely pointing out that it would be wrong to assume that this unfortunate event would not have happened had there been no takeover. I wanted to put the matter in perspective in that sense.
I come now to the question regarding takeovers which the hon. Gentleman raised. In broad principle, my Department's approach to the matter is that, when deciding whether to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission, the effect of such a takeover on employment, especially in special development areas, is taken into consideration along with other factors of importance in this context, the protection of the interests of the consumer, and so on. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that employment, and especially employment in areas of particular difficulty, is very much taken into account. It was taken into consideration in the present case, and the view was clearly formed that it would not

necessarily have avoided the event which has taken place if the matter had been referred to the Monopolies Commission.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right, in the interests of his constituents and the proper development of his area, to endeavour to ascertain the full circumstances of this case. We should like to do so also because it seems that there is some divergence of view. It would be wrong for me at short notice to pontificate on who is right and who is wrong. My industrial director in the area went to see the firm, Wright's, last Friday, I understand, to hear so far as possible the position at first hand. He is in touch with the parent company to ascertain the full facts. We shall do our best to clarify points which have emerged in this debate and in correspondence and I shall, consistent with commercial confidentiality, which we must respect, be glad to give the hon. Gentleman such information as we have. I have considerable faith in our new regional structure and our industrial director, who is a new appointment following the new regional policy that we have embarked upon.
We as a Department, and my regional officers in particular, shall use every possible endeavour to alleviate the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman's constituency suffers as a result of this or any other closure. We are in a much more powerful position so to do than we have been for a very long time, following the passing of the Industry Act. The Act gives us new powers to provide new and unique incentives to industries which wish to locate themselves in special development areas like the hon. Gentleman's constituency, or to existing industries which wish to expand there.
With those new powers, with the incentives that are available and the efforts which will be made by our new and strengthened regional structure, I very much hope it will be possible before long to find fresh employment and create that diversity of industry which I know the hon. Gentleman wants very much. I understand that the firm has sufficient orders for it to carry on work until Christmas. Obviously, the Department will not sit idly by. We shall try to find out the facts and encourage new industry to go to the hon. Gentleman's area and existing industry to expand to provide the sort of employment that the hon. Gentleman wants to see there.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am very grateful to the Minister, but could he go just that little further? I welcome any help in getting at the facts, and any information the hon. Gentleman can give, but on the rather wider Question, on the takeovers will he at least agree to look further at the point that I have set out in a letter which I think he has just received, and perhaps give a considered reply after he has had an opportunity of studying it further?

Mr. Grant: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will study in greater detail his letter, which I have only just received, and he will receive a reply from me or from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was only seeking to emphasise in the broadest possible way that there

are certain powers in dealing with the references to the Monopolies Commission which we exercise and take into consideration.
I have no doubt that we can pursue the details of this matter with the hon. Gentleman. He may rest assured that I well understand the anxiety being experienced by his constituents. I hope that some of their anxieties may well prove to be exaggerated. We shall make every endeavour, using all the new powers that we have, to see that they are properly placed and, so far as possible, to bring new, prosperous industry to the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.